Political Correctness

[TexRex]

@TexRex, difference is Hidalgo already had a track record with making disparaging remarks about fans, Theory has a channel that's been around for years so it can be interpreted that he know exactly what he was doing.

What he was doing was mocking an individual's emotional response. He referenced emotions in his mockery. The individual's having survived cancer may be relevant to the emotional response, but it isn't relevant to the mockery. Hidalgo, as far as I'm aware, did not reference cancer survival in his mockery. So while the mockery over the individual's emotional response may have been distasteful (it is in my view), it's not reprehensible as it would have been had it revolved around the individual being a cancer survivor.

I frequently bemoan my mother in-law. It's almost exclusively in her presence and when it is in her presence, it's only ever playful. The mockery revolves around her being my mother in-law, and it's frequently reciprocated. Think Endora and Derwood Darrin on Bewitched. My mother in-law also happens to be a cancer survivor. Her having survived cancer plays no part in the mockery.

Also spending some time thinking of it and adding a beer for thought, I do think there's a bit of distinction to be made between cancel culture and boycotting. Cancel culture is focusing on getting someone you don't like taken off something you like, whereas a boycott is a response to not agreeing with a decision that a company makes and make it known to them by not giving them money.

This difference may have existed at one point, but any meaningful distinction has been lost as the term has been used in our day-to-day.

 

[MatskiMonk]

She has used social media before.

... and I'm not objecting to people judging her by her use of social media, or Disney binning her off because of it... I'm objecting to people misrepresenting something in order to make something stick because somebody said something else they didn't like.

She's either being anti-Semitic, or she's comparing conservatives to Holocaust victims. If it's the former, then sure, she's not condoning criminal actions, she's just being a hateful bigot.

Do you think she hates Jews? Do you think that being a conservative (lol, we have a conservative government thanks to deep divisions, and fear and hate of other nations, races and religions), means she condones all the actions of all the conservatives? I don't think either is true - it's probably closer to the latter for sure, but I don't believe it's that binary.

 

[huskeR32]

Do you think she hates Jews?

I clearly stated two posts ago that I don't think she was being anti-Semitic; I think she's a narcissistic conservative with a persecution complex.

Do you think that being a conservative (lol, we have a conservative government thanks to deep divisions, and fear and hate of other nations, races and religions), means she condones all the actions of all the conservatives?

I don't think simply being a conservative means one condones those actions. But to, at this particular moment, suggest that conservatives are somehow victims in all this? Yeah, I think holding that view necessarily includes an approval of what has been done.

I don't think either is true - it's probably closer to the latter for sure, but I don't believe it's that binary.

Then answer my question - what other reason is there for that image? I honestly don't see any.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Wholly unsurprising you'd completely disregard the thrust of the solicitation to consider gang culture as correlating to those who perpetrate violent acts better than ethnicity.

Did you completely disregard my whole response to Danoff and misinterpret what I said?

Yes gang culture

Yes gang culture

The rest of what you quoted was showing that black youths are more drawn to that for various reasons and we have to try and stop that. And no, that doesn't mean the black demographic is the only one attracted to gang culture. Reduce the allure of being in a gang and you start to tackle knife crime.

 

[UKMikey]

@UKMikey referring to something as "Republican talking points" is completely subjective and does not make it true. It persistently gets thrown around to justify hate and divisiveness and to dismiss criticism. The right certainly has problems and issues but this gets used far too frequently to discredit opinions when something disagrees with a person's political view.

I think this is itself a subjective viewpoint. It's difficult to parse a statement such as "what Republicans are going through is like the lead up to Kristallnacht" as anything but right-wing.

Were Carano to make statements supporting unionisation or centralised healthcare right-wingers would have no problem labelling her views as liberal. But if a person identifies as a liberal and holds the view that Californians are demented over the top mask wearers then they're at the very least a liberal who holds a right-wing view.

I don't believe these are subjective positions or that Gina supporter Mike Cernovich has any pretensions towards identifying with liberals when he decries CNN or "Pedowood". There's your hate and divisiveness, right there.

This works both ways. I don't think "oh c'mon, we know what she reeeealllly meant", is much more sincere frankly. She pissed off the trans community and people actively sympathetic towards it, then she pissed off sane people with her opinions on Covid mitigation measures, and now, what I would consider to be a largely forgettable deleted retweet is being made out to be more than it is because people that didn't get their #FireGinaCorano wish those two times want another shot.

Thanks for mining my quote but that doesn't really answer my question. We should give her the benefit of the doubt because this time she didn't mean it? Meanwhile it's ok to use a bad faith argument towards Gina cancellers because they're lying about her latest tweet that no one could possibly find anything wrong with? This strikes me as a bizarre defence, if not actively hostile.

 

[Jezza819]

The former Aunt Jemima line of products finally has a new name that will start appearing on grocery shelves in June. They will be called "The Pearl Milling Company".

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/09/business/aunt-jemima-new-name/index.html

 

[Danoff]

I'm objecting to people misrepresenting something in order to make something stick because somebody said something else they didn't like.

No I'm saying that it provides context to understand her intended meaning.

 

[NotThePrez]

The rest of what you quoted was showing that black youths are more drawn to that for various reasons and we have to try and stop that. And no, that doesn't mean the black demographic is the only one attracted to gang culture. Reduce the allure of being in a gang and you start to tackle knife crime.

I'm admittedly only a very casual observer in most of this thread, but this bolded part stuck out to me. You just admitted that it's not only Black people that engage in this activity, but you seem to always specifically mention the Black populace, with little acknowledgement of any other groups that may/may not be involved. I've also noticed you seem to refer to some of these folks by their country of origin fairly often, rather than referring to them as fellow brits or Londoners.

You seem to be singiling out a particular demographic, even though it is not the only involved demographic by your own admittance. Why is that? And why is it that you say that black youths are the ones who need attention, with (as far as I've been able to notice) little-to-no mention of other parties?

 

[Northstar]

The former Aunt Jemima line of products finally has a new name that will start appearing on grocery shelves in June. They will be called "The Peal Milling Company".

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/09/business/aunt-jemima-new-name/index.html

A terrible name for a terrible product, they chose well!

 

[Scaff]

I'm admittedly only a very casual observer in most of this thread, but this bolded part stuck out to me. You just admitted that it's not only Black people that engage in this activity, but you seem to always specifically mention the Black populace, with little acknowledgement of any other groups that may/may not be involved. I've also noticed you seem to refer to some of these folks by their country of origin fairly often, rather than referring to them as fellow brits or Londoners.

You seem to be singiling out a particular demographic, even though it is not the only involved demographic by your own admittance. Why is that? And why is it that you say that black youths are the ones who need attention, with (as far as I've been able to notice) little-to-no mention of other parties?

It's even odder when you take into account the focus on London alone as well, given that knife-crime and gang violence is not limited to London, and as soon as you include the whole of England and Whales (Scotland reports crime figures differently due to devolved government differences) the majority (even accounting for demographic differences becomes white!

Then again he does the exact same by focusing only on grooming gangs, which allows the focus to be on Asian males, when you include all forms of sexual abuse involving those underage it once again moves in the total opposite direction.

It's almost as if an agenda is at play...

 

[Danoff]

When talking about knife crime it is. They are all Londoners, but they are more involved in knife crime and so affects their communities more.

Does it? Is their community London? Is it black people? Is it black people with ancestry in the Caribbean? What exactly is their community? And are they more likely to perpetuate violence against people that look like them, or are from where they're from? Is that because of ethnicity?

Here is a breakdown of victims and perpetrators of knife crime in London in the years 2008-2018

If we pick a random year, say 2012 we see that people proceeded against for knife crime who were Afro Caribbean was 1475. This was higher even than the largest ethnic group in London (White European) which was 984. For victims, Afro Caribbeans made up 2799. Considering that, according to the 2011 census the percentage of black people in London was 13.3% you can see it is a massive problem for the community.

Those are some of the reasons, and they affect the black community more hence the knife crime.

Let me ask you... is there such a thing as the white community?

Because of the differences in the factors. If we look at one, say educational attainment, we see that:

At GCSE level, young people from the Black major ethnic group, on average, have the lowest combined English and maths pass rate of any major ethnic group. However, Black pupils fare better on the main progress measure. Black African pupils generally fare better than Black Caribbean pupils.

If we address these factors, we have a chance at reducing black-caribbean knife crime. I didn't think it needed to be said, but the problem isn't being black, but the factors.

Since you love these breakdowns, why do you think Black African students do better than Black Caribbean students?

So this has to do with how cultures can influence the factors that lead to knife crime.

Yes, gang culture. Which the black-Caribbean community is drawn to in higher amounts for a variety of reasons.

So shouldn't you be going after gang culture rather than anything to do with black-Caribbean people? I mean, I presume that gang culture is bad for everyone, regardless of skin color or ancestral lineage.

Target what makes those of black-Caribbean descent want to join a gang. Set up interventions.

...or... anyone? When you say this, you're implying that there is something important about the characteristic you highlight... "black-caribbean" that attracts someone to join a gang. Wait, are we getting back into correlation and causation again?

When I'm talking about problems with knife crime in the black community I'm saying we need to address that intelligently. For example. in London there are efforts to get youngsters into boxing to teach them discipline and steer them away from gangs. It would be idiotic to focus their efforts on Chinese kids as the problem isn't there.

What if a Chinese kid might join a gang? Can we help that kid? How about we don't target programs at specific ethnic groups and instead just try to address the actual problem - which is gangs (according to you).

The subject of ethnicity and brain capability? I got interested in intelligence after realising I was only a handful of people of black descent studying my degree out of a cohort of hundreds. I wondered whether it may in part have to do with differences in capacity due to ethnicity, and I seriously questioned my ability to study the degree and how I would fare in what it was training me for, thinking that my heritage could be a reason. The debates I had on the subject here on GTP opened my eyes on many facets of the topic, and led to a re-evaluation of my beliefs while throwing up even more questions.

Well I'm glad you're re-evaluating your beliefs. For the record, I don't think that there is any evidence that your particular ethnicity or genetic ancestry makes it impossible for you to study anything at all, and I think that's true of me too.

That's not to say that I don't have intellectual aptitudes (and you as well). I'm not sure where all of those aptitudes come from. It may be early cognitive pathway development, or perhaps there is a genetic component. I honestly do not know. But if you have a particular intellectual aptitude or interest, there's no reason to think that if you look different than those around you, that you shouldn't follow, or can't follow, that particular aptitude or interest.

 

[UKMikey]

The former Aunt Jemima line of products finally has a new name that will start appearing on grocery shelves in June. They will be called "The Peal Milling Company".

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/09/business/aunt-jemima-new-name/index.html

Pearl.

 

[Biggles]

I'm admittedly only a very casual observer in most of this thread, but this bolded part stuck out to me. You just admitted that it's not only Black people that engage in this activity, but you seem to always specifically mention the Black populace, with little acknowledgement of any other groups that may/may not be involved. I've also noticed you seem to refer to some of these folks by their country of origin fairly often, rather than referring to them as fellow brits or Londoners.

You seem to be singiling out a particular demographic, even though it is not the only involved demographic by your own admittance. Why is that? And why is it that you say that black youths are the ones who need attention, with (as far as I've been able to notice) little-to-no mention of other parties?

So, are we ignoring the Peaky Blinders? (Not to mention those Jewish ruffians in London)

 

[MatskiMonk]

what other reason is there for that image? I honestly don't see any.

Forget for a moment who shared this text (but please enlighten me if you know who wrote it, and feel free to highlight who shared it with most of the internet)...

Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors... even children.

"Because history is edited, most people today don't realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?"

The image poses a question, perhaps the reason for posting it, was just to ask the question.

No I'm saying that it provides context to understand her intended meaning.

Does it? She seems to have posted many positive messages on twitter, why are those not factored in to this "intended meaning" groupthink?

 

[NotThePrez]

So, are we ignoring the Peaky Blinders? (Not to mention those Jewish ruffians in London)

A quick Google search brings up a (what seems like a fascinating) TV show, and a youth gang during the late-19th/early-20th Century. I assume you're referencing the latter, but I'm a bit lost overall.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Thanks for mining my quote but that doesn't really answer my question. We should give her the benefit of the doubt because this time she didn't mean it? Meanwhile it's ok to use a bad faith argument towards Gina cancellers because they're lying about her latest tweet that no one could possibly find anything wrong with? This strikes me as a bizarre defence, if not actively hostile.

Sorry, I missed this before. I'm not quote mining, but I do disagree with most of the premise you're floating, I believe it's all potentially disingenuous, so I chose to focus on that one word. If you want to take my position as actively hostile, that is your choice.

 

[Danoff]

Does it? She seems to have posted many positive messages on twitter, why are those not factored in to this "intended meaning" groupthink?

Voter fraud conspiracies just a few months ago. The nazi post was deleted in conjunction with an anti-mask (anti-california) post. How are you not seeing the link, when it is so apparent to the people around you?

Nothing but positive messages right? Yay democracy, yay votes, yay treating your neighbors with respect... and uh... yay masks?

That's a mind unwilling to understand.

 

[huskeR32]

Forget for a moment who shared this text (but please enlighten me if you know who wrote it, and feel free to highlight who shared it with most of the internet)...

What does any of this matter? She shared it of her own volition. At that point, it’s her trying to communicate something.

The image poses a question, perhaps the reason for posting it, was just to ask the question.

“How is that any different than hating someone for their political views?”

That’s not a neutral question. It’s already presupposing there’s no difference.

 

[Jezza819]

Voter fraud conspiracies just a few months ago. The nazi post was deleted in conjunction with an anti-mask (anti-california) post. How are you not seeing the link, when it is so apparent to the people around you?

Nothing but positive messages right? Yay democracy, yay votes, yay treating your neighbors with respect... and uh... yay masks?

That's a mind unwilling to understand.

Her tweet sounds a lot like, "We need to put processes in place that ensure our numbers will be bigger than theirs".

 

[longshot1314]

@Danoff if you were looking to trigger me at anything you've effectively done it. Saying that you want to call out election fraud is entirely different than the garbage that trump's said, and the post you shared again has no context into saying whether it's supporting Trump or not (subjectivity, the shield people use to not get their feelings hurt). And if you really want to go deep into Trump's election fraud claims, while I don't agree in the least bit with the actions taken by his supporters with respect to January 6th or the statements made by him and his supporters, the fact is when one party spends four years claiming the illegitimacy of an election and pushing that as hard as they can with zero self awareness, there should be no surprise when the opposing party decides to use the same claims against them. Pushing garbage does not make any side immune from confirmation bias. and indeed just looking into what happened to Bernie in both 2016 and 2020 suggests that election fraud is perfectly fine and acceptable if it's the primaries where most mainstream Americans don't care. And again refer to my statements regarding the 'The Last Jedi' backlash but when media blamed that backlash on Russian bots it was pretty clear indicator to me that the whole narrative surrounding 'Russian bot' accusations is propaganda and gets used to try and discredit what goes against the mainstream and establishment narrative, and there has been plenty of evidence and independent media that have reported on this and are pretty far on the left such as Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski for example.

 

[Scaff]

@Danoff if you were looking to trigger me at anything you've effectively done it. Saying that you want to call out election fraud is entirely different than the garbage that trump's said, and the post you shared again has no context into saying whether it's supporting Trump or not (subjectivity, the shield people use to not get their feelings hurt). And if you really want to go deep into Trump's election fraud claims, while I don't agree in the least bit with the actions taken by his supporters with respect to January 6th or the statements made by him and his supporters, the fact is when one party spends four years claiming the illegitimacy of an election and pushing that as hard as they can with zero self awareness, there should be no surprise when the opposing party decides to use the same claims against them. Pushing garbage does not make any side immune from confirmation bias. and indeed just looking into what happened to Bernie in both 2016 and 2020 suggests that election fraud is perfectly fine and acceptable if it's the primaries where most mainstream Americans don't care. And again refer to my statements regarding the 'The Last Jedi' backlash but when media blamed that backlash on Russian bots it was pretty clear indicator to me that the whole narrative surrounding 'Russian bot' accusations is propaganda and gets used to try and discredit what goes against the mainstream and establishment narrative, and there has been plenty of evidence and independent media that have reported on this and are pretty far on the left such as Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski for example.

Who pushed for the illegitimacy of the 2016 election?

It certainly wasn’t the Democrats or the left (aside from maybe some outliers) they did point out the absurdity of a system where you can win the popular vote, but still lose the election. That, however, is pointing out an issue with the system, not illegitimacy.

The only group, led by one person, who cast the 2016 election as illegitimate was actually Trump, who was pissed he lost the popular vote.

Independent reporting has consistently shown that US elections are legitimate and secure.

Election fraud taking place is, quite simply put, a right-wing talking point.

Don’t forget her ‘honest I’m not Transphobic, but I’m just going to post out some transphobic nonsense' moment either.

https://www.starobserver.com.au/news/disney-fire-gina-carano-following-transphobic-tweets/200682

So that’s election fraud, victim complex anti-Semitic noise, and transphobic nonsense, but she’s not right-wing.

It walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, but apparently is actually a Marxist!

 

[McLaren]

This works both ways. I don't think "oh c'mon, we know what she reeeealllly meant", is much more sincere frankly. She pissed off the trans community and people actively sympathetic towards it, then she pissed off sane people with her opinions on Covid mitigation measures, and now, what I would consider to be a largely forgettable deleted retweet is being made out to be more than it is because people that didn't get their #FireGinaCorano wish those two times want another shot.

All the more reason then she should've stayed away from subject & decision to share the post initially if one is to assume people are just waiting for her to share another political post they can attack.

But, she's not stupid. She knew full well sharing that statement about linking what happened to the Jews in the beginning & hating someone today for their political views was easily going to be seen as controversial. The govt. isn't making us hate conservatives, there's enough folks out there doing that for themselves like Trump who aren't being hated for being conservative, but hated because they share rhetoric themselves that clearly take only their preferred groups of people into consideration. "No abortion b/c my religion says so. Stand for the anthem, or leave the country. America first. The other side wants to kill America & bring in socialist/communist China." That's literally Trump's own propaganda & fear porn he shares at his rallies. It's a big reason the Republican party is splitting and some are forming their own party, they don't want that rhetoric or image being cast on them.

Even then, it's not like liberals & the Democratic controlled branches are just waiting for the right moment to start rounding up conservatives once enough of the population hates them. It's just never going to happen based on the current divide.

I mean, the whole idea is super-ironic anyway. I don't know how many Parler posts I've read about "taking back the country and rounding up traitors (libs)" for Trump. Sounds like there's plenty of conservatives who hate liberals simply for being liberals & kill them like Jews. Doesn't help a certain congress woman once liked a post, "Isn't it quicker to bullet in them" in reference to Democrats.

Spare me the idea that Jewish people originally being hated & beaten by their own neighbors b/c of the German government before being rounded up is at all something that could happen to Conservative people these days.

Forget for a moment who shared this text (but please enlighten me if you know who wrote it, and feel free to highlight who shared it with most of the internet)...

Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors... even children.

"Because history is edited, most people today don't realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?"

The image poses a question, perhaps the reason for posting it, was just to ask the question.

If you asked the question in this forum, you'd most likely get a sincere response open for debate. If this question was posed by certain other members with a history of questionable biased-posts, the question would be seen right through for what it is.

The person sharing it has a background of pro-Republican controversial posts about anti-vaxx, anti-mask, election fraud claims, etc. You're judged on your reputation & Gina's reputation made it super easy to construe it as a loaded question. If she was completely sincere in asking as if you were here, she should've proposed it in a more personalized manner than just sharing how the source she shared it from founded the question. And I'm sorry, but the source of which she shared the initial post, warriorpriestgympodcast, is just as guilty based on their own past posts of sharing the same Republican controversial posts & myths.

This was not just asking a question, that's all there is to it based on both parties previous histories.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff if you were looking to trigger me at anything you've effectively done it. Saying that you want to call out election fraud is entirely different than the garbage that trump's said, and the post you shared again has no context into saying whether it's supporting Trump or not (subjectivity, the shield people use to not get their feelings hurt).

That's absurd. I'm sorry, were you looking for me to ignore the entire world and all context and try to communicate with my brain tied behind my back? Because i'm not going to - and that's not how people communicate. She's calling out election fraud on Nov 5 2020! Who was doing that? Only people peddling in Trump's false conspiracy theories. I suppose I should qualify this and say we're talking about someone in the US, but honestly I don't know how many other groups on the planet were crying about election fraud on Nov 5 2020 besides people in the US, and specifically people who bought into Trump's completely unsubstantiated election fraud claims.

You don't even need to read the part that says "so we are not left feeling the way we do today". Election fraud, in the US, is (for all intents and purposes) not really a thing. I know some people tried it in 2020 (many of them republican), but it didn't make a dent. By all accounts*, the 2020 election count was the most accurate we've ever had. I don't know if you remember hanging chads, but it was a bigger deal than we saw in 2020. It's fake nooz! Not a thing, didn't happen, isn't an issue. All the evidence stacks up against election fraud occurring... unless you're a member of one group - and that's Trump supporters.

You know what else Trump likes to push? Anti-mask theories, anti-California propaganda, and GOP persecution complex. All of which are paraded in a big way in each of these posts. Still not seeing it? How much more on the nose does it have to get with the hardcore Trump narrative for you to see it?

A mind willing to understand is what this requires.

And if you really want to go deep into Trump's election fraud claims, while I don't agree in the least bit with the actions taken by his supporters with respect to January 6th or the statements made by him and his supporters, the fact is when one party spends four years claiming the illegitimacy of an election and pushing that as hard as they can with zero self awareness, there should be no surprise when the opposing party decides to use the same claims against them.

No, sorry that's not how it works at all. One side is complaining about minority representation (a legit complaint) while the other side is complaining about fraud (which didn't happen). One of those things actually happened, and is a real issue. The other is made-up nonsense peddled by a fraudster who tried (many times, in many ways) to steal the election.

just looking into what happened to Bernie in both 2016 and 2020 suggests that election fraud is perfectly fine and acceptable if it's the primaries where most mainstream Americans don't care.

Right, because everyone remembers the Bernie thing (the Bernie thing happened to other candidates too) and says "oh yea that was perfectly cool, I'm happy with that". There was a huge backlash. People were furious. It lost the democrats plenty of votes. Also it wasn't election fraud, to the best of my knowledge, no votes were modified in any way. The complaint there was favoritism within the party (which happens every time in every party, but that's a somewhat separable issue).


* By all accounts which included actual evidence and intellectual rigor. In otherwords, by all believable accounts. By all non-Trumpist accounts.

 

[lancia delta hf]

She's either being anti-Semitic, or she's comparing conservatives to Holocaust victims. If it's the former, then sure, she's not condoning criminal actions, she's just being a hateful bigot.

.

Or you just have no idea what she actually feels and have no real understanding of her thoughts and whars going on? On mainstream news and blue ticks over the last month.

Put Trump supporters on a list.

Round up Trump supporters put them in re-education camps.

Take kids off Trump supporters and put them in re-education camps.

If you voted Trump you are a Nazi ( well that's also been going in for 4 years )

What do we do to save America from the Trump supporters threat ( also 4 years )

Punch a Nazi ( I.e anyone the media demonise I.e Trump supporters )

Children must snitch on their Trump supporting parents ( oooh that sounds too close to Germany, sorry I mean "Gerwomany" for me)

( And my personal favourite) The suggestion by an MSM host that America DRONE STRIKES Trump supporters.

Conservatives having to hide their political leanings for fear of losing their job or being assaulted.

Gina Carano was 100% correct with her statement, a statement of fact. A statement of fact that the "virtuous' were predictably and pathetically going to interpret as racist or anti semitic. Gina has more minerals than any of the people bashing her for her statement of fact.

 

[Danoff]

Gina Carano was 100% correct with her statement, a statement of fact. A statement of fact that the "virtuous' were predictably and pathetically going to interpret as racist or anti semitic. Gina has more minerals than any of the people bashing her for her statement of fact.

I just want to make it clear that you're not making the same argument as @longshot1314 or @MatskiMonk, you're arguing that being a trump supporter really is like being a Jew in Nazi Germany.

Hang on...

Gimme just a second...

Honestly, Trump attempted to overthrow the American government and you're upset that people are angry with Republicans... get perspective.

 

[huskeR32]

Pushing garbage does not make any side immune from confirmation bias. and indeed just looking into what happened to Bernie in both 2016 and 2020 suggests that election fraud is perfectly fine and acceptable if it's the primaries where most mainstream Americans don't care.

What "happened to Bernie" in those primaries was perfectly within the rules outlined by the DNC charter. A lot of people have now come to learn exactly how the whole process works, and have some legitimate gripes about it, but it wasn't fraudulent in any way. To draw comparisons between that and Trump asking election officials to commit fraud, telling his supporters to vote twice, and encouraging insurrection, is absurd.

--

Or you just have no idea what she actually feels and have no real understanding of her thoughts and whars going on?

Why is everybody suddenly acting like it's impossible to discern a person's general worldview by looking at their own words? It's not like she's been subtle about things these last few months.

On mainstream news and blue ticks over the last month.

You have a source for any of these? This reads like a brainstorming list from a weekly planning meeting for Hannity or Tucker Carlson.

What do we do to save America from the Trump supporters threat ( also 4 years )

This one is actually a pretty legitimate thing to ask, isn't it? I'd like to know what we can do to make sure a swarm of idiots can't break into the Capitol again.

Children must snitch on their Trump supporting parents

You really expect anybody to believe this appeared on a legitimate news site?

( oooh that sounds too close to Germany, sorry I mean "Gerwomany" for me)

I have never in my life meant this more than I do right now: What?

( And my personal favourite) The suggestion by an MSM host that America DRONE STRIKES Trump supporters.

I don't suppose you happen to have the name of this host, do ya?

Gina Carano was 100% correct with her statement, a statement of fact.

Hang on, you opened this post by telling me she didn't say the thing I thought she said. Now you're ending the post by saying she was correct in saying it?

 

[Scaff]

Hang on, you opened this post by telling me she didn't say the thing I thought she said. Now you're ending the post by saying she was correct in saying it?

She's not a right-wing trump supporter, apart from when she is, which is never when she posts like one!

Come on it's simple......

 

[Tornado]

I'm just amused that a chick who was cast for a role because she was jacked but could barely act even by Star Wars standards not getting a new contract was the final straw. Not some self-important ResetEra campaign that got a developer to yank something out of a game. Not something being cancelled because someone found out that the lead told a joke on Twitter in 2008. Not something being scrubbed from reruns because someone sent an angry letter to the station.



But some D-List celebrity who has spent the past 4 months being awful on Twitter (not just being a conservative, and not even just being a Trump supporter, but actively being human excrement) not getting their minor role back in a television show in the next season.

and indeed just looking into what happened to Bernie in both 2016 and 2020 suggests that election fraud is perfectly fine and acceptable if it's the primaries where most mainstream Americans don't care.

That wasn't an election, that wasn't fraud, and it has been a fairly common talking point since then to wonder whether the way Hillary was ramrodded down people's throats by the DNC into being the candidate on the ticket despite the distaste for her in her own party contributed significantly to the Democrats losing the election.

 

[Joey D]

Punch a Nazi

You should absolutely be able to punch a Nazi, preferably blindside them too so they do not-see it coming.

 

[Scaff]

Time to quote Karl Popper again.

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."