Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The SJW thread The SJW thread

08-12-2017 , 03:03 AM
Is this a good time for another reminder that wil has me on ignore?

I still can't get over how bizarre that is. I had an educated guess about the numbers but after well named posted the stats it was even more extreme.

Why doesn't he just go to SMP if he feels the need to block out a good tenth of this forum?

The only thing more bizarre would be if one of us had him on ignore.
08-12-2017 , 03:05 AM
a good tenth
08-12-2017 , 03:06 AM
the gift that keeps on giving

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
...

I spend my time laughing at your stupidity.

...

Trolly at least is funny. You don't even have the ability to be that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
Yeah, lol ok. You are a joke.
08-12-2017 , 03:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
a good tenth
a great tenth

the bigliest tenth
08-12-2017 , 03:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
Only a small group are calling people like Bill Maher racist. They do not represent the majority who simply do not. In the real world many lefty liberals oppose the name calling approach to politics. That includes much of the Labour movement in the UK and most of the liberal democrats.

It's easy to think the few matter much more than they do just because they make so much noise. They like to take a lot of credit for progress but they are far more an artifact of the progress than the cause of it. If you really oppose that progress then that's one thing but if you're going to oppose progress just because you hate the small noisy element then that's a tragedy.

I'll prove it to you - who came to Bill Maher's defense when it happened? Where were the ENDLESS black people who Bill Maher has helped and defended over his whole career when he was labelled a racist?

Crickets. Why? Why do you think they left him in the lurch like that?
08-12-2017 , 03:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
Only a small group are calling people like Bill Maher racist. They do not represent the majority who simply do not. In the real world many lefty liberals oppose the name calling approach to politics. That includes much of the Labour movement in the UK and most of the liberal democrats.

It's easy to think the few matter much more than they do just because they make so much noise. They like to take a lot of credit for progress but they are far more an artifact of the progress than the cause of it. If you really oppose that progress then that's one thing but if you're going to oppose progress just because you hate the small noisy element then that's a tragedy.

It's the bold, not the bit after. The bit after is the convenient scapegoat.

I truly do get why people are opposed to the so-called name-calling-approach, because they believe it causes the bit after, providing the convenient scapegoat, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The people 'oppose(d to) that progress' will find a scapegoat regardless. Self-justification is psychology101.
08-12-2017 , 03:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6ix
the gift that keeps on giving
I must be funny in that unintentional kind of way. So i got that goin for me which is nice.
08-12-2017 , 03:19 AM
It's like they're actively trying to emulate trump's foolhardy ignorance.
08-12-2017 , 03:19 AM
What %age of lefty/liberals do you reckon did call him a racist?

Not exactly my field as I don't watch Maher or know of most of the people mentioned but here's a site objecting to black people defending Maher http://www.blackenterprise.com/news/...ng-bill-maher/. That suggest there are some defending him.
08-12-2017 , 03:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
What %age of lefty/liberals do you reckon did call him a racist?

Not exactly my field as I don't watch Maher or know of most of the people mentioned but here's a site objecting to black people defending Maher http://www.blackenterprise.com/news/...ng-bill-maher/. That suggest there are some defending him.
Lol, nonsense. People could have defended him publicly. Well known people. They didn't. Why?

Because of fear of leftist hysteria. Your career is on the line any time you go up against leftists. Everyone here knows that is true, yet you'll trip over yourselves saying "they don't speak for us" while staying completely silent when someone else gets crucified.

It's cowardice to not speak out against it. I'm not making this up. I'm not pulling this out of my ass. It's standard operating procedure for the left to try to end anyone's career who disagrees with them. Shut down their public events, call them racists, start a campaign to have them fired.

Standard.
08-12-2017 , 03:24 AM
I haven't watched him in forever, pre HBO. But i would not call him a racist. Religious bigot maybe but not a racist.
08-12-2017 , 03:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6ix
It's the bold, not the bit after. The bit after is the convenient scapegoat.

I truly do get why people are opposed to the so-called name-calling-approach, because they believe it causes the bit after, providing the convenient scapegoat, but that's putting the cart before the horse. The people 'oppose(d to) that progress' will find a scapegoat regardless. Self-justification is psychology101.
Self justification is vital here but your horse & cart idea claim is far too much. In part the response is an emotional one to the personal hatred/divisiveness - that is then self-justified with political arguments. That's alongside the self-justification that you focus on. Both happen.
08-12-2017 , 03:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
Lol, nonsense. People could have defended him publicly. Well known people. They didn't. Why?

Because of fear of leftist hysteria. Your career is on the line any time you go up against leftists. Everyone here knows that is true, yet you'll trip over yourselves saying "they don't speak for us" while staying completely silent when someone else gets crucified.

It's cowardice to not speak out against it. I'm not making this up. I'm not pulling this out of my ass. It's standard operating procedure for the left to try to end anyone's career who disagrees with them. Shut down their public events, call them racists, start a campaign to have them fired.

Standard.
The funny thing that will be lost on you is the term leftist/commie has been and still is used to shut down speech, end careers and remove political power. You do the very thing you condemn.
08-12-2017 , 03:33 AM
Oh now it's leftist/commie? When have I ever called anyone a commie?

Lol everything about you is a lie.
08-12-2017 , 03:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
Self justification is vital here but your horse & cart idea claim is far too much. In part the response is an emotional one to the personal hatred/divisiveness - that is then self-justified with political arguments. That's alongside the self-justification that you focus on. Both happen.
The best I can grant you is a Chicken v Egg scenario. And even that's being generous.
08-12-2017 , 03:34 AM
Wait. Nobody move. I think we just experienced the Stupid Singularity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
Oh now it's leftist/commie? When have I ever called anyone a commie?

Lol everything about you is a lie.
08-12-2017 , 03:35 AM
You use leftist as blunt weapon to do what you condemn.
08-12-2017 , 03:38 AM
I mean, the fact that Bill Maher didn't lose his show and ~half of the black folks who weighed in rolled their eyes is proof of the exact opposite. All of these 'crucifixions' are usually deserved.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wil318466
Lol, nonsense. People could have defended him publicly. Well known people. They didn't. Why?

Because of fear of leftist hysteria. Your career is on the line any time you go up against leftists. Everyone here knows that is true, yet you'll trip over yourselves saying "they don't speak for us" while staying completely silent when someone else gets crucified.

It's cowardice to not speak out against it. I'm not making this up. I'm not pulling this out of my ass. It's standard operating procedure for the left to try to end anyone's career who disagrees with them. Shut down their public events, call them racists, start a campaign to have them fired.

Standard.
08-12-2017 , 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6ix
The best I can grant you is a Chicken v Egg scenario. And even that's being generous.
That's extraordinary. A very standard automatic type of reaction to a claim by someone disliked is to disagree with them. That then gets the self-justification treatment just like everything else does.

The reality is an ongoing complex feedback system of beliefs, experiences and learning. It's not a chicken and egg type scenario.
08-12-2017 , 03:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
You use leftist as blunt weapon to do what you condemn.
He has no idea what 'leftist' means and, like, wikipedia exists.

Can you even imagine what our ancestors would think? People died fighting for **** like public libraries and now, here we are.
08-12-2017 , 03:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
That's extraordinary. A very standard automatic type of reaction to a claim by someone disliked is to disagree with them. That then gets the self-justification treatment just like everything else does.

The reality is an ongoing complex feedback system of beliefs, experiences and learning. It's not a chicken and egg type scenario.
They have to be disliked first it would appear.
08-12-2017 , 03:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6ix
He has no idea what 'leftist' means and, like, wikipedia exists.

Can you even imagine what our ancestors would think? People died fighting for **** like public libraries and now, here we are.
Well one of my friends who is a no good commie gets pissed when even the word left is used to describe liberals. His head would explode here.
08-12-2017 , 03:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6ix
They have to be disliked first it would appear.
Some do work very hard at it Not a huge stretch to claim it's part of the intent but that that doesn't matter either way here.

The mistake is in the claim that the dislike or the political views comes in some whole part first. In reality it's a messy complex process that unfolds over long periods of time. Hated/dislike grows, views get formed and then entrenched etc etc. It can become a vicious cycle and the result is a more polarised and divisive society - maybe some thing that's good but that's a different discussion.
08-12-2017 , 05:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004
No, I knew that. I wanted to know if he had anything other than that which had already been debunked.
I know I shouldn't break the fourth wall, but I couldn't help it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by augie_
amazing. the study is not valid because it's comparing trans population to the general population. would you prefer if they compared the trans population to a population of penguins?

the bullying explanation doesn't hold water and you know it. it's frustrating to encounter such an obvious lie. you damn well know bullying doesn't account for that kind of increase in suicide. gay people cite lots of bullying, their suicide rate is much lower than the trans suicide rate. that's because being gay is a preference, a quirk. being transgender is a confusion about your own identity, much more obviously a negative condition.



it's absolutely in dispute and it's not at all obvious that transitioning is helpful. the data shows that the suicide rate goes up when the trans person is noticed in public and goes down when the trans person is 'passable' and doesn't get noticed. should we tell certain trans people that they might make an ugly dude so they probably shouldn't transition?

another factor is if this becomes widely accepted as normal behavior, parents will start to give their children hormone treatment during adolescence if the child tells them they have gender confusion. children are extremely maliable and sexuality is very foreign and confusing during puberty. this will lead to children receiving hormones when they shouldn't and joining the 40% club instead of living a relatively normal life as gay or straight.

i'm not telling anyone to "get over it." someone very close to me has a serious mental illness. i'm well aware that people can't "get over it." they have to learn to live with it. SJW's and virtue signalers like to pretend they support people with mental health issues but i've experienced it first hand. when mental illness rears it's head, everyone except the family and VERY good friends quickly fade away.

but the transgender person also has a million virtue signalers online telling that person they're totally normal and they should absolutely cut their dick off when the real data shows that it's not clear at all it's a good idea. and then people like me get labeled "conservative fear mongers." it's pretty annoying!
Your claim was that the suicide rate went up after transitioning. I quoted a part of the study you linked that said the data hadn't been collected in such a way to show this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by augie_
on a different but related note, there's another hypocrisy by the left that i've been thinking of lately. maybe someone will defend this one since nobody would defend the first one i set out.

ever since i was a kid, the argument for LGB rights (anyone remember when it was LGB?) was that sexual preference was born in. it was not a choice so it should never be discriminated against in any way. this is a view that i agree with. there are a million reasons why people become gay and it's obviously a mix of nature and society, with nature playing the greater role, but the ratio is different for everyone.

has that position evolved in any way? because it's at odds with the idea that a person can choose their gender at any time based on how they feel. or switch back and forth and be both genders. or some other gender (which means there are infinite genders and gender means nothing).

gender is OBVIOUSLY more biologically linked than sexual preference. you won't find sexual preference in our chromosomes but you will find gender. yet, gender is the choice? and who you want to have sex with was determined in the womb?
This was already explained in one of my previous posts. I do think it's inaccurate to say that people are born gay and that's that. Where things currently stand is that homosexuality has a genetic factor. The problem with genetic factors for behaviour is that we know that quite frequently you can have genes for some trait without expressing it later in life. And the mechanism via which this occurs is almost certainly not some reductive manner in which we could say something like "These two genes plus a mother that hugged him too long equals a gay man". It's going to be something more like "One of several combinations of genes plus a large number of subtle environmental factors".

And, very importantly, there's no evidence to suggest that it's traumatic experience that does anything here. Normal, healthy backgrounds lead to gay adults too.

When people say "You're born gay" they might be somewhat inaccurate, but what they often mean is more like "It's not a choice".

      
m