Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

User avatar
DBSeeker
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:30 pm
Contact:

Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby DBSeeker » Mon Nov 21, 2016 11:40 pm

http://fortune.com/2016/11/21/trump-net-neutrality-fcc/

"President-elect Donald Trump formally named two staunch opponents of net neutrality to oversee his policies for the agency that created the rules to prevent discrimination against Internet sites and online services."

Honkey: A true libertarian. So anti-corporate, he's actually pro-corporate censorship of speech. Looking forward to him being ok with this because of some angry protesters.

wwo
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby wwo » Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:40 am

Relying on the government to do the right thing is almost as bad as expecting corporations to do likewise. Political hypocrisy really isn't worth many "got ya" points anymore.

User avatar
DBSeeker
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby DBSeeker » Tue Nov 22, 2016 5:30 am

Except, wwo in the case of Net Neutrality - our present government lead by the guy they appointed to head the FCC did step in to put in rules to guarantee Net Neutrality.

So yes, government did the right thing.

However, now we elected in a government who isn't going to do the right thing. So no, we don't get to say that we can't expect government to do the right thing, especially in this area, when we already have an example that runs contra to your premise.

wwo
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby wwo » Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:40 am

Wheeler wasn't going to live forever. This is a government where the Congressional Librarian gets to determine whether we can jailbreak our phones or not. Unless it's hardcoded into an Amendment, everything's on a 4-year contract. My premise never was that the government has or would ever do the right thing, so nothing is running "contra" here.

edit: The current administration has also done nothing to stop (read: left completely exploitable) media+distribution megapolies like Comcast+NBC+Universal from bullying local governments (read: "donating" to politicians) from creating their own fiber networks, and Verizon and TMobile already ignore/violate net neutrality without consequences beyond a bit of bad PR among techies and wonks.

Pogue
Posts: 1187
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Pogue » Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:20 am

Join Trumperica friends. You are most welcome.

Honkey
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:41 am
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Honkey » Tue Nov 22, 2016 4:15 pm

Yeah the war on the net got started long before Trump. How hes my boy? not quite sure... made it very clear i did not vote for him nor support his campaign. Since we're talking about media objectivity might find this interesting....

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228

Ironically the most hilarious thing is the liberals say "Fox is nuts and lacks credibility" etc.... when they freaking donated to the one and only HRC. As ive said for a long time media is fake. The net is already heavily censored. Then to top it off we have more informational filtering.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fakenews-facebook-20161119-story.html

Apparently Mark Zuckerberg is now the authority on "realistic news".

And in regards to that article do you think comcast and other media conglomerates pushing for Clinton weren't pushing for the same results?

Here's an apology letter from the one and only New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html?_r=0

Glad they are "rededicating themselves" to the entire concept of their profession.

All i said was I am happy Trump won over Hillary. And its because of people like this:

http://www.danielledash.com/a-quick-read/2016/9/3/lena-dunham-toxic-white-feminism

In closing... love how the word "bigot" is being thrown around haphazardly without any knowledge of the meaning of the word when bigots such as Ms. Dunham are an absolute embodiment of the word.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

At the end of the day the FCC doesn't need to worry about filtering information... seems the left is already working on it for them.

But hey the dems are great people right?This guy was almost HRC running mate.
[url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vzFeiKH1jQ[/url]

and just for fun... Typical libtard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOH9trJLedk&t=74s

Honkey
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:41 am
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Honkey » Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:12 pm

This just in: Trans disabled is now a thing. Liberals will admonish me for saying these people are worthless idiots.

User avatar
DBSeeker
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby DBSeeker » Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:04 pm

Honkey - As has been said many times - there isn't a fundamental difference between saying you're glad someone won and not "supporting" them.

A. So they donated to the Clinton Foundation. You mean that A rated Foundation that is notorious for spending money on causes like Aids in Africa and helping train rural farmers in Africa. Yeah, horrible.

B. Zuckerberg has been destroyed by just about anyone with regards to his remarks about Fake News. The problem is Fake News has really proliferated on Facebook. So... Zuckerberg needs to be involved in solving that issue. I'm not sure what the problem is here...

Unless, you're going to claim that InfoWars isn't Fake News.

C. Cool, I'm glad that you want to pick on people who say they are "transabled." Really proving me wrong here that your first response is to insult them rather than actually figure out what's going on here.

Honkey
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:41 am
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Honkey » Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:08 pm

You must have skimmed what I wrote. I have no issue with a third gender box on an application... I do have am issue with taking it further as the precedent it sets as the only road it leads to is utter insanity. Other countties recognize Transgender ism... fine by me. However the militants liberal continues to push this even further than it needs to be pushed. What is next Trans canine? Where people walk around on all 4s barking? And btw (not my classifications) both transabled and Transgenderism are treated as psychological disorders.

At some point the individuals feelings don't matter anymore in a societal frame of reference. The main reason I posted transabled is an example of how ass backwards we are heading. For people worried about viable employment the last thing on their agenda is worrying about a 3rd bathroom in an elementary school and when a party runs on similar platforms it's very easy to dismiss people not buying in to the lunacy as racists etc.

And no I don't put myself in the category of any of the 3 mentioned because I don't even like trump... I just think the alternative is even more terrifying... I've made this clear many times... I've made clear I'm a libertarian many times.... I've addressed real human rights issues and cast my vote for people who want to address rights issues such as the war on drugs many times... and all I get is crickets. You have yet to acknowledge any of the points I've made other than the ones you choose to address.you have yet to acknowledge I feel wealth redistribution under the guise of social welfare is a zero sum game.

Answer this:

Why are the conditions of inner cities in Democrat controlled cities such as milwaukee, chicago, so bad and continuing to get worse despite all three cities having Democrat leadership for 100 years?

My belief they help create problems, promise to solve them, never do, then come out with half ass programs such as free cell phones to buy votes and create dependancy on their party.

What meaningful legislation has the Democrat party done to address the worst social injustice in America... the war on drugs?

In Milwaukee where I live... schools are highly underfunded... it has the highest zip code for black incarceration in America.... and has been Democrat run forever. While the white areas prosper... the minority areas (instead of given schools) are given shot spot technology. Instead of investing I'm neighborhoods... the dems invest in public service announcements... they pass laws that have lead to massive theft and car jackings and an increase in gang violence further compromising safety, scaring private investores, and killing property value. On top of it they fail to prosecute slum lords, allow derelict and vacant homes to the point where areas look like 3Rd world nations. Not one initiative they have taken goes to address real problems.... it's only to build perception they care. Where you continue to vote for people like this I once again support politicians that want to flat out end the war on drugs... which is the equivalent of institutional racism. The dem solution is blame white males.... not their failed policy... and put the burden of their poor policies on contributors to society regardless of race. Glad you vote for these people they say they are good people but their actions contradict that. That in of itself is where I differ from the people you compare me to.... their response to the same issue would be something like "they belong in jail" with a racial slur somewhere in there.

Trump's language:

It was all bullshit as obviously displayed by him backing out of basically every main campaign platform before even taking office. Hes already said the gay marriage issue is decided, he's already stated that killing Obama care is not going to happen. So what two main platforms is he still pushing?

#1- checking illegal immigration. Guess what dude? America even enforcing some small degree of immigration checks will still make it the easiest country to immigrate to on earth. But since it's all "racism" I guess the Japanese, Brazilians, Europeans, Chinese, middle eastern counties, and basically everywhere else on earth is racist as fuck. Even beloved Canada where everyone wants to go is strict... much stricter than the United states. There is no point in even having a country if people are allowed to move here and not integrate. Wanna hear more bulls hit the dnc pushed? It is 100% true over 4 million illegals filed taxes... what Mrs Clinton didn't say however.... is the didn't pay taxes they filled them to receive refund benefits! That doesn't work... and to call someone racist because they don't believe that is acceptable shows how ass backwards the Brooklyn mentality is. Fact of the matter is this is once again a symptom of the war on drugs... the same war on drugs no Democrat or republican will challenge. The entire dnc stance isn't about immigration... it's about importing voters.

Muslim registry:

Very mis understood and quite frankly we already do something similar it is absolutely redundant. The only thing the Muslim registry serves to do is to require people moving here or visiting here from select countries to register. That is it. In many of these same wonderful places there are amazing activities such as forcing women to wear full body cover, punishing homo sexuality with death, religious genocide, state sponsored pedophilia and hosts of other crimes against humanity. Even the amazing allies the dnc touted such as Saudi Arabia won't even allow Americans to visit there country under any circumstance. So give me a break....documenting people from these places is not the second coming of aushwitz like you and the Huffington post try to tell people. They are terms for refugees to willingly come here.. don't like it? Stay in allepo. We don't go to their country and expect them to let us run freely... in fact... they won't even allow us in half the countries. But somehow... this is a racist practice when it's already happening.


So to tldr: idenotifying as a liberal and acting like it makes you morally superior because they say they are champions of the people... despite evidence completely contrary in application.... doesn't make you moral... it makes you naive. Me thinking an outsider is better (despite some questionable baseless rhetoric) doesn't make me a "Trump supporter" it makes me a subscriber to the lesser of two evils mantra as I live in an area of the country that has seen first hand for 100 years the amazing liberal policies in full form.

It might be easier to dismiss anything I say in black and white terms (no pun intended)... but I'm telling you its over simplifying.

Signed... a person who didn't vote for Hillary or trump but politicians who stand for more social justice than the dems and more financial responsibility than the Republicans.

Edit: I will make this even easier... despite butting heads... I would without a shade of doubt rather live in the communist anarchist world vision milkman supports than the liberal Democrat world vision.

wwo
Posts: 819
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby wwo » Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:29 pm

DBSeeker wrote:A. So they donated to the Clinton Foundation. You mean that A rated Foundation that is notorious for spending money on causes like Aids in Africa and helping train rural farmers in Africa. Yeah, horrible.

And $3m on Chelsea's wedding, unless you're going to pull the ol' "Russians did it!" thing. It's a scam. It's okay to admit blue is as dirty as you want red to be.

p.s. what the hell is "transabled"?

Honkey
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:41 am
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Honkey » Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:04 pm

Transabled people are people who either purposely disable themselves by cutting their own limbs off or they are people who "feel disabled inside".

There is a psychological term for it but I forget what it is.

User avatar
DBSeeker
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby DBSeeker » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:57 am

wwo wrote:
DBSeeker wrote:A. So they donated to the Clinton Foundation. You mean that A rated Foundation that is notorious for spending money on causes like Aids in Africa and helping train rural farmers in Africa. Yeah, horrible.

And $3m on Chelsea's wedding, unless you're going to pull the ol' "Russians did it!" thing. It's a scam. It's okay to admit blue is as dirty as you want red to be.

p.s. what the hell is "transabled"?


I saw that email. It's one email. It's flimsy proof. It's referring to hearsay about some internal investigation run by Chelsea Clinton into the foundation.

Regardless, $3 million dollars is pretty hard to hide in a foundation that spent about $56 million for the year.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites ... mended.pdf

User avatar
DBSeeker
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby DBSeeker » Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:17 am

Honkey - your posts are long rambling posts that run for miles and miles. Get more succinct or I'll just start ignoring them.

Honkey
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:41 am
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Honkey » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:22 pm

Honkey - your posts are long rambling posts that run for miles and miles. Get more succinct or I'll just keep cherry picking the areas I want while ignoring the grand scheme. How can you not sum up our entire political system in 2 sentences like myself and the rest of the east coast?

User avatar
sharkdrivingabus
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby sharkdrivingabus » Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:07 pm

Seeker's intellectual laziness aside - from my perspective the issue isn't the length of your posts but the lack of coherence.

User avatar
DBSeeker
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby DBSeeker » Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:01 pm

Honkey wrote:Honkey - your posts are long rambling posts that run for miles and miles. Get more succinct or I'll just keep cherry picking the areas I want while ignoring the grand scheme. How can you not sum up our entire political system in 2 sentences like myself and the rest of the east coast?


It's not about summing it up in two sentences or less. It's about presenting a coherent tightly packed argument that is readable and organized. You lack the ability to do that, or you would just go ahead and do it rather than get huffy and angry about not being able to do it.

I do find it funny that you complain about condescension while being condescending yourself. Displays your lack of self awareness.

Honkey
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:41 am
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Honkey » Wed Nov 23, 2016 10:29 pm

Granted I typically reply from a cell phone at work and its hard to proofread. I will sum up my entire post:

Dems and repubs are big happy family... i dont vote for either.

Dems and repubs both support this thing called the war on drugs. The war on drugs incarcerates minorities at exceedingly high rates, allows gang activity to thrive, destroys their communities, and causes civil wars in mexico leading to increased immigration. War on drugs also leads to increased police encounters... which in turn lead to incidents such as people being shot and the continuation of stereotypes that lead said police to commit such actions. In fact almost all issues of race can be traced back to the war on drugs... and obamas 89 inmates are a start but just the tip of the iceberg... but when it comes to a platform against it... the Dems have done squat and their donors benefit highly from drug illegality.

Meanwhile the same banks that sponsor HRC and launder El chapos drug money are free of any criminal issues. All this could be avoided by voting for candidates like Gary Johnson or other third party candidates (the people I vote for). The dem stance on immigration has nothing to do with "Human rights" and everything to do with importing voters. Whats the point of bringing this up? Its quite simple.... I believe actions more than words.... and quite frankly both parties have a despicable record on rights... despite what the news tells you.

From a local and psychological standpoint:

I also dove in to local politics and the inherent racism of: Public service announcements vs Investing in communities and gave the community i live in as an example of how minorities end up under 75+ year Democrat local government in a State that is traditionally democrat. A majority of "good intention" democrat policies such as free cell phones, health care, etc are only designed to maintain captive voters as those programs only work when they have people to re distribute wealth from and liberal Media of course decided that your average working class white male is solely responsible for the plight of others and thus should be responsible for the bill. Instead of acknowledging extreme failure from a policy standpoint they instead promote media to essentially attack white males... by calling them uneducated, deplorable, priveleged, etc. Trump attacked races too...... and people are outraged by it.... DNC is just as guilty of engaging in that behavior albeit in a much more covert manner.... look no further than people such as the afformentioned Lena Dunham, Amy Schumer, Perhaps even yourself as banner carriers.

That my friend between the terrible economic policy and bigotry created the "white lash". Realistically the "white lash" is nothing more than scapegoating for a terribly corrupt candidate sponsored and publicly backed by elitists around the world. A logical person would say "how couldnt we beat trump the worst candidate ever (besides HRC) we need to go back to the drawing board" and take a very important concept that has eluded the entire left for quite sometime to heart.... accountability. Maybe Dems can say to themselves "next time our actual choice gets completely fucked by a wall street 1% elitest criminal we will respond before we end up with a person like Trump". THis important lesson was taught in the election and instantly disregarded for the same shit you and the rest of the coasts are spewing... "its all racism" "I need a safe zone" "i dont need to take finals at my ivy league school" "I want a cry circle and playdough" "Putin, Russia, Spies" "Fbi Director". The only response from the left besides a few of their law makers has been "deflect any and all accountability for what made people reject us". You do not have the moral high ground to say a single thing about a person who supported trumps intentions when parading out that human being as his competition. People are not going to simply "look the other way" when their perception is what she DID is worse than what Trump SAID.

I will tell you had the left taken their stand when they should have.... we likely would be talking about President Sanders Transition team. In my state (a state that had Trump 3rd in primaries which he won substantially in the general election).... Sanders was the run away choice in the primaries.... he was a movement... it wasnt even close. Wiki leaks exposed the collusion against him and that was a HUGE factor in Trump winning WI. Since you like to smash wikileaks credibility (only when it applies to the DNC)... Why the hell did the head of the DNC resign as a result of Wikileaks? Thats about as solid of an admission of guilt as possible.

So once again... No i dont support trump.... but if i had to choose I would pick him over the current representation of the left anyday.... and a group of people that feels its ok to rig primaries, give the media talking points, cheat with debate questions, run questionable foundations, and are primarily sponsored by large banks.

Its much easier to call me racist then to look around and realize the world isnt what you think it is.

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1591
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Giant Killer General » Wed Nov 23, 2016 10:52 pm

okay but can we stop calling democrats the left? there is no major party on the left. just because they are left of the republicans doesn't make it the actual left. it is more of the center / moderates. dems and repubs are basically the same in many ways, and that is because we only have a centrist party and a right-wing party in this country. if you want something at least somewhat resembling the left, that would be something more along the lines of the green party. maybe libertarians are also the true right wing instead of republicans? Certainly in some ways.

Most everyone clings to whatever team they find themselves on either on the left or the right, and starts fighting the same ideological battle that has been going on for centuries to basically no avail. the whole thing is a distraction from the real issues. it is not about left vs right so much (localization of government would resolve and unentangle all of the left vs right disagreements anyway). It is really about establishment vs anti-establishment. if you are fighting the left vs right debate while ignoring the establishment vs anti-establishment debate, then you are doing exactly what the establishment wants you to do so they can avoid any real change that challenges their power. That is the illusion of choice they want to give us all, stop falling for it. if you fight the establishment battle instead (which is far more important) then you will find that we have way more in common than you would have ever guessed, and that is where real change comes from. We need to stop looking for a team to align ourselves with which just makes us a slave to our basic tribal instincts, and instead learn to just think for ourselves independently. This makes for much better discussion too instead of regurgitating the same old tiresome talking points the establishment has likely manipulated / brainwashed into the public.

also let's just all agree to 2 things: conservatives have some bigots that should be disowned as not being true conservatives. liberals also have some social justice warriors that should be disowned as not being true liberals. Let's stop trying to make each side own up to the absolute worst of their respective sides (or pretend that they don't exist on our side), and instead just agree that they are all idiots on both sides and disown them all equally together. Then maybe we can move on already with the standard attacks both sides have been flinging at each other for decades and talk about the important ideas, instead of about overly emotional people. it is getting really old, and its boring. think of something new already.

User avatar
DBSeeker
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby DBSeeker » Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:12 am

Honkey wrote:Granted I typically reply from a cell phone at work and its hard to proofread. I will sum up my entire post:

Dems and repubs are big happy family... i dont vote for either.

Dems and repubs both support this thing called the war on drugs. The war on drugs incarcerates minorities at exceedingly high rates, allows gang activity to thrive, destroys their communities, and causes civil wars in mexico leading to increased immigration. War on drugs also leads to increased police encounters... which in turn lead to incidents such as people being shot and the continuation of stereotypes that lead said police to commit such actions. In fact almost all issues of race can be traced back to the war on drugs... and obamas 89 inmates are a start but just the tip of the iceberg... but when it comes to a platform against it... the Dems have done squat and their donors benefit highly from drug illegality.


This is selective. Look at all the states that have legal marijuana now: Colorado, California, Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, Maine & Alaska. The only Republican state there is Alaska. The rest are Democrat. The only blue state without a law for even medical marijuana is Virginia.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state ... ional.html

So yes, you can say both Democrats and Republicans have supported the War on Drugs. There are also many Democrats who do not support the War on Drugs. There are only a few Republicans who do not support the War on Drugs.

It seems clear to me that your premise is false.

Meanwhile the same banks that sponsor HRC and launder El chapos drug money are free of any criminal issues. All this could be avoided by voting for candidates like Gary Johnson or other third party candidates (the people I vote for). The dem stance on immigration has nothing to do with "Human rights" and everything to do with importing voters. Whats the point of bringing this up? Its quite simple.... I believe actions more than words.... and quite frankly both parties have a despicable record on rights... despite what the news tells you.


Gary Johnson didn't get votes because he was an idiot. He was doing well in the polls until the "Aleppo" incident, and then he doubled down on it. He was finished when John Oliver put out his video.

As for the banks involved in drug money laundering:

Bank of America employees donated some to Hillary. It was around $500,000.
Wachovia is now owned by Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo donated some to Hillary. They also donated some to Bernie Sanders (I guess he's corrupt now too!). They didn't donate that much to Trump.
HSBC information is much harder to find - it appears they mainly donated to Republican "organizations." HSBC is also the organization directly responsible for the el chapo incident.

So yes, banks make donations. They do not sponsor candidates, unless you think paying someone for a speech is a way to "own" someone. In which case, it still doesn't apply because Goldman Sachs wasn't involved in drug money.

As for your beliefs on "importing voters." That's ridiculous. Most immigrants who pass a citizenship test after years of living here know more about this country than you do.

I'm not going to get into the rest except to say that you aren't doing a good job of convincing me you aren't a racist. My point is that it's pointless talking to people like you. You want the PC filter taken off. I took it off and now I treat you like the racist that you are. All of a sudden you want me to stop it. You are just like Flatline, or Zak. People who like to troll, insult, and act like shits. When someone does it to them in turn, they cry about unfair treatment. You don't get that.

You want to be anti-SJW, fine. That means I get to be an asshole to you all day and you just need to accept it. This is the world you wanted. Deal with the consequences racist.

Revan
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 4:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Revan » Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:25 am

DBSeeker wrote:
Honkey wrote:Granted I typically reply from a cell phone at work and its hard to proofread. I will sum up my entire post:

Dems and repubs are big happy family... i dont vote for either.

Dems and repubs both support this thing called the war on drugs. The war on drugs incarcerates minorities at exceedingly high rates, allows gang activity to thrive, destroys their communities, and causes civil wars in mexico leading to increased immigration. War on drugs also leads to increased police encounters... which in turn lead to incidents such as people being shot and the continuation of stereotypes that lead said police to commit such actions. In fact almost all issues of race can be traced back to the war on drugs... and obamas 89 inmates are a start but just the tip of the iceberg... but when it comes to a platform against it... the Dems have done squat and their donors benefit highly from drug illegality.


This is selective. Look at all the states that have legal marijuana now: Colorado, California, Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, Maine & Alaska. The only Republican state there is Alaska. The rest are Democrat. The only blue state without a law for even medical marijuana is Virginia.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state ... ional.html

So yes, you can say both Democrats and Republicans have supported the War on Drugs. There are also many Democrats who do not support the War on Drugs. There are only a few Republicans who do not support the War on Drugs.

It seems clear to me that your premise is false.

Meanwhile the same banks that sponsor HRC and launder El chapos drug money are free of any criminal issues. All this could be avoided by voting for candidates like Gary Johnson or other third party candidates (the people I vote for). The dem stance on immigration has nothing to do with "Human rights" and everything to do with importing voters. Whats the point of bringing this up? Its quite simple.... I believe actions more than words.... and quite frankly both parties have a despicable record on rights... despite what the news tells you.


Gary Johnson didn't get votes because he was an idiot. He was doing well in the polls until the "Aleppo" incident, and then he doubled down on it. He was finished when John Oliver put out his video.

As for the banks involved in drug money laundering:

Bank of America employees donated some to Hillary. It was around $500,000.
Wachovia is now owned by Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo donated some to Hillary. They also donated some to Bernie Sanders (I guess he's corrupt now too!). They didn't donate that much to Trump.
HSBC information is much harder to find - it appears they mainly donated to Republican "organizations." HSBC is also the organization directly responsible for the el chapo incident.

So yes, banks make donations. They do not sponsor candidates, unless you think paying someone for a speech is a way to "own" someone. In which case, it still doesn't apply because Goldman Sachs wasn't involved in drug money.

As for your beliefs on "importing voters." That's ridiculous. Most immigrants who pass a citizenship test after years of living here know more about this country than you do.

I'm not going to get into the rest except to say that you aren't doing a good job of convincing me you aren't a racist. My point is that it's pointless talking to people like you. You want the PC filter taken off. I took it off and now I treat you like the racist that you are. All of a sudden you want me to stop it. You are just like Flatline, or Zak. People who like to troll, insult, and act like shits. When someone does it to them in turn, they cry about unfair treatment. You don't get that.

You want to be anti-SJW, fine. That means I get to be an asshole to you all day and you just need to accept it. This is the world you wanted. Deal with the consequences racist.


That closing argument. Gold.

par73
Posts: 2827
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby par73 » Thu Nov 24, 2016 4:29 am

Honkey wrote:Transabled people are people who either purposely disable themselves by cutting their own limbs off or they are people who "feel disabled inside".

There is a psychological term for it but I forget what it is.


people who are disabled by choice aren't actually disabled at all

they are just idiots

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1591
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Giant Killer General » Thu Nov 24, 2016 5:28 am

I wonder Seeker, since you want to make a big deal out of who people supported and possibly be arguing / implying that every Trump supporter must be a racist, why don't you divulge who you supported? Did you support Hillary over Bernie in the primary? Or are you just going to hide it so you aren't subject to any criticism yourself?

User avatar
DBSeeker
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby DBSeeker » Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:15 am

I'm not implying shit. I'm directly calling people out. It's fucking obvious.

I'm saying people like yourself don't get to use pejoratives like SJW to demonize an entire set of beliefs & then get huffy & puffy when I turn that medicine on you.

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1591
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Giant Killer General » Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:20 pm

Okay that's fine, thump that chest bro. But where did I get huffy and puffy about anything? You are the one that seems to be getting overly emotional over nothing. And why can't you answer the question? Were you one of those "I'm with her" types, attacking Bernie supporters and calling them sexist too? Is this your modus operandi for all of your political opponents? I hope not, but you sure sound like it.

But let's use your logic with Hillary supporters then too to be fair and consistent. Maybe every Hillary supporter is a warmonger too since that is what Hillary has stood for (she admits she is friends with, and takes advice from Henry Kissinger, on top of all her other bad ideas / actions as secretary of state, need I say more). Or maybe she is actually a racist too because she started as a Goldwater girl (who pushed the southern strategy) and her super-predator comment a long time ago. Or maybe she is anti-gay too because she didn't support it until it became political suicide for her to keep fighting it in 2013. And maybe she is completely fake, two-faced, and stands for nothing because she has admitted to donors that she has a separate public and private positions on everything. Surely then we can say every single one of her supporters must also be a warmonger, racist, anti-gay, and two-faced too? It's fucking obvious, amiright? I agree conservatives throw a lot of shit at her that is unwarranted and doesn't stick, but some of it does still stick too. If you think she is flawless, then you are hiding in a pretty deep bubble yourself. (btw, if it's so obvious that Trump is so disgusting and racist, I wonder why Hillary was friends enough with him to be at his wedding? hrmmm...)

If you are going to use this logic on one candidate's supporters, then you have to use it on all of them. And the logical extreme of this goes no-where and leads to a dead end. It does absolutely nothing to resolve any situation, only dividing people further to no real end. And you get overly emotional because you have fundamental misunderstanding of what the problem actually is. Even if Trump is a racist, he is far less of a racist and actually far more of a con-man (which a lot of politicians are anyway). He is a reality TV star, he lives off the audience. He is going to say and do whatever plays off of the emotions of his audience to feed his ego. He craves attention and respect more than anything else because of his massive insecurities and daddy issues.

Eventually people will realize they got conned by him. But Trump is more similar to Obama in many ways than you want to realize. You know who deported more illegal immigrants than any president in history? Obama. More than George W. Bush (something conservatives who support such a position of course would never credit him for, or willingly choose to stay blind to). I would be surprised if Trump could touch his numbers on that one. Who has more drone strikes? Obama again. Who put the Patriot Act on steroids and put in an executive loophole to remove habeas corpus? Obama again (which now Trump will have that power, nice thinking there Obama). And Hillary was basically running as an extension of Obama's presidency (a completely uninspiring, no-change candidate). If anything she is further right than Obama.

8 years ago Obama was supposed to be the progressive darling - hope and change and all that. It took a few years to realize the progressives got conned. They learned their lesson. Now it's the conservatives turn to get conned and learn theirs. Years from now very few are going to be proud of ever supporting Trump (just like you don't see many defenders of George W. Bush these days). But sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better. It's the slow-boiling frog anecdote. Hillary is the slow-boil where we all die. Trump is the quick-boil where we can jump the fuck out, learn our lesson, and move on more quickly.

User avatar
DBSeeker
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby DBSeeker » Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:27 pm

You don't get to call out people for being emotional while using pejoratives like SJW. You don't get to make negative assumptions about my behavior during the primaries, but say I am being "emotional."

You are effectively saying you can be insulting but I cannot. Hence, it is pointless arguing with you. You have a history of being obtuse, and willing to extend threads for days just to get the "win." See: the last thread in the Cu Classic thread.

Getting into an argument with you is a worthless proposition.

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1591
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Giant Killer General » Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:35 pm

Why are you still going on about people using sjw? Since when is social justice warrior a pejorative or an insult? what on earth are you talking about? Are you saying they don't exist? Would you prefer the term regressive instead? you are incredibly thin-skinned sir.

You don't want to argue with me because you don't have one apparently, and you don't want to answer my simple question. That's fine.

User avatar
DBSeeker
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby DBSeeker » Thu Nov 24, 2016 7:07 pm

Giant Killer General wrote:Why are you still going on about people using sjw? Since when is social justice warrior a pejorative or an insult? what on earth are you talking about? Are you saying they don't exist? Would you prefer the term regressive instead? you are incredibly thin-skinned sir.


[quote="Giant Killer General]

liberals also have some social justice warriors that should be disowned as not being true liberals. [/quote]

This is why I brought it up.

Regardless, this seems like an honest inquiry on your part so I will answer it. If you turn this into your usual antics, I'm out.

A. SJW is an insult used to demonize liberals in general. It arose during the GamerGate saga to attack pretty much anyone who defended the girl at the center of it: Zoe Quinn.

It then became a general term of insult to describe anyone who held any sort of progressive views.

In 2015 - it entered the Oxford Dictionary. Here is the definition:


informal, derogatory
A person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views:
‘these social justice warriors want to apply their politically correct standards and rules to others' speech’

So yes, it's a term that's only used as an insult. It goes hand in hand with the anti-PC sentiment. They are, for the most part, inseperable.

As for the primaries - I'm not answering that question, because I'm tired of arguing about the primaries. These were the most bruising Democratic primaries I've seen. In 2008, at least everyone was on board with the institution of the party. In 2016, it was all about purity tests.

It wasn't a purity test of ideals either (See: the love of Tulsi Gabbard by fans of Bernie Sanders. She's been a strong supporter of the BJP for years. One of the best things that happened during the Bush years was telling Modi he wasn't allowed in the U.S. Like Duerte in Phillipines.)

The purity test is about one thing:

Do you love Bernie Sanders?

So no, I'm not answering your question because this is not an argument I want to go through again. Once was bad enough.

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1591
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Giant Killer General » Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:03 pm

No idea what antics you are referring to, but I understand perfectly well what SJW means. And I get the hypocrisy of some right-wingers not wanting to be called racist while also wanting to call terrorism as a problem of "radical islam", and be blunt calling things as they are at face-value and attacking PC-culture in general. Many people certainly use the term way too loosely and carelessly, but that doesn't mean that SJW's / regressives do not exist at all. Some progressives use it to describe other self-described progressives as well, because there is a distinction. There can be an argument about where the line is drawn, there can be a grey area about what qualifies as it or not, but there is an extreme where the label absolutely does fit. They are people that get overly offended, shut down discussion with emotional attacks, and then run off feeling good about themselves for doing so.

If you prefer another term, then call them regressive, but we need something to call them, because it is a very real problem that does exist in the global discussions of the world. I say they aren't true liberals because the most extreme of them do violate liberal values such as freedom of speech, and end up behaving exactly like some of the people they despise, which is hypocrisy at their finest. They also hurt the liberal / progressive movement by making it look bad. If you haven't ever seen an example of this happen then that is a lack of awareness of what is going on in the discussions of the world.

Here is what the sjw / regressives of the world fail to understand and appreciate: being racist / sexist / whatever-ist is not illegal. Acting on it in certain ways can be, but people are free to believe whatever they want. Attacking / shaming / isolating bigotry directly, while it may scratch the emotional ego and feel good, at best it does absolutely nothing, and at worst only makes matters worse by giving the other side something to fight against and a reason to do so, thus feeding their narrative for war (just like how invading the middle east and blowing it up for 15 years now has managed only to make the whole terrorist problem worse than ever).

That isn't how MLK inspired a movement to bring about change. The only way to truly win this battle is to change people's minds. It is an educational problem that requires enlightenment, not a moral battle that requires more fighting. So instead people have to engage with their ideas, making small dents in them over a long period of time (which is what I tried to do with Melekor for like 10 pages in a previous thread). If you want an awesome example of what actually works in bringing about positive change, check out this video of a black guy who converted several KKK members to give up their robes by just talking to them (hint: he didn't just keep calling them racists to do it, even if they obviously were racist and maybe were even proud to be called as such. he did it by convincing them why the idea and thinking behind it doesn't work and isn't consistent).

We have to decide what we care more about. We can either treat it as a battle of emotions, and go on enacting vengeance on others to feel morally superior and help feed the cycle of battle to keep going on forever. Or else we can treat it as an educational problem and challenge bad ideas in a rational way to bring about the actual change we desire. Some emotions and insults are bound to happen along the way, just have to have a thick skin through it.

And you don't have to answer about the primaries, that's fine. I think you just answered enough anyway such that it can be assumed that you did support Hillary over Bernie, which would explain why you are so upset about it now since you had your bubble burst recently (again, not insulting, just making a pretty non-controversial statement of what actually happened to all the Hillary supporters out there).

User avatar
DBSeeker
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby DBSeeker » Fri Nov 25, 2016 1:34 am

I understand where you are coming from GKG. However, it's not an approach I'm fond of...

You invoke MLK as someone who supports your stance. In reality, that's not true at all:

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

MLK wasn't fond of those who advocated a more indirect method of attack. He was about taking the fight directly, which he did against Bull Connor. I'm not saying his approach is better than your more moderate approach. I'm just saying he's probably more aligned with those you are criticizing.

Look, I understand where you are coming from with the guy who spent years working on the KKK guys in Maryland. However, the key word is years & there isn't any time for that anymore.

Oh & everyone should be upset about Trump. His victory means extreme climate change is a certainty unless significant parts of the country want to buck federal law & approve Climate Change agreements on their own.

Boxer
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 1:31 am
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Boxer » Fri Nov 25, 2016 2:17 am

States can certainly set strict environment laws but it's a suicide economic move because of states and countries that don't. From a Harvey wallflower point of view, in the modern world 2016, I see the black community(man I hate that term) stumbling over a lot of the blocks they lay themselves. So let me get this right; Librals can call other liberals social justice warriors, liberals can refer to each other as social justice warria's, but none liberals can not use the sjw term?

User avatar
DBSeeker
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby DBSeeker » Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:03 am

You can call whomever you want, anything you want.

However, the term SJW is meant as an insult. You don't get to claim to be upset that someone you used an insulting term doesn't appreciate it.

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1591
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Giant Killer General » Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:09 am

Ever heard the phrase, praise by name, criticize by category? That is what MLK did, criticize by category. And that is the difference between what you just described MLK doing and what SJW's do, who criticize by name. Maybe he did have to target certain prominent racists, but that's only because of what they represent more broadly. And I don't see any evidence suggesting he went and picked that same fight with every single racist / white moderate at an individual level the same way SJW's do.

Also MLK's fight back then is absolutely not the same fight being fought by SJW's today. He was fighting for legitimate reforms. What reforms are SJW's fighting for? They aren't fighting for some positive reform to benefit people, they are fighting for the right to negatively label someone as racist so they can punish them based on their beliefs and speech. It's not true freedom of speech if unpopular speech is not allowed under threat of punishment. Forcing racists into hiding does not get rid of the racism. It just gets repressed and festers for a while until it blows up, and then you get Donald Trump.

Nelson Mandela once said: "Our task is not to liberate the oppressed, but to liberate the oppressors." Someone has to take responsibility for the problem to bring about real change. Racists certainly aren't going to do it, because by definition they don't see it as a problem. And everyone else isn't taking responsibility for it by simply calling them racists. At some point someone is going to have to sit down and do the dirty work of actually getting to know these people and engaging with them with compassion and empathy as human beings to change their minds. We absolutely have time. It has been 50+ years since the civil rights act, we have time. Even if we didn't have the time, what are the larger examples of your approach ever working? I don't see them. It simply doesn't work at all.

And stop being so sensitive about the term SJW. Being offended about the use of SJW is just overwhelmingly ironic. It's as if we are pretending that those who speak out like SJW's are fragile, powerless, and need protection. In many cases it is they who have the power today. Again, we need a term to describe them because they can be a problem at times which needs to be discussed openly about. So if not calling them SJW, then call them regressive, or at best "misguided leftists" (which is being a bit too kind in many cases). But I really don't see what the big problem is about with the use of the term. It is like you are trying to treat it as if it is the n-word or something. Totally not the same thing, not even similar a little bit.

User avatar
DBSeeker
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby DBSeeker » Fri Nov 25, 2016 4:19 am

I'm saying it's a term used as an insult.
You're not supposed to be offended over terms used as an insult?

Ok. That's the point.

As to your question about the direct calling out approach working - pretty easy. MLK didn't shy away from confronting racists directly. He didn't sit around saying we needed to have compassion & understanding for Bull Connor types or for benign racists. He attacked the problem head on. He was willing to attack racists head on. (See: 1968 speech to Memphis Sanitation workers about economic issues between blacks & whites.)

Not to mention the Supreme Court of Brown v. Board of Education.

Other examples of a more direct approach working in the U.S.: Stonewall Riots.

Lord---Scary Owl
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:53 am
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Lord---Scary Owl » Fri Nov 25, 2016 4:27 am

You guys should write a book together

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1591
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Giant Killer General » Fri Nov 25, 2016 4:59 am

I think you missed the irony of someone being offended by the use of the term SJW.

First of all, I never called you an SJW. You apparently identified as an SJW and got offended by it all on your own (projection?). So nope, you weren't supposed to be offended, because nobody used that to describe you. That's like me talking about the racists in the world and some random person getting offended by the use of the term racists. Maybe your confusion is in thinking that every liberal / progressive is a SJW. They are not.

Second of all, can one use the term racist / SJW just to describe a concept without even intending it as an insult? Yea, you can. It isn't just like calling someone a cocksucker, they have additional meaning and purpose beyond just being an insult with the intent to offend.

Third of all, even had I or anyone else called you an SJW and meant it as an insult, who cares? Being offended by something is a choice. So again, nope, you don't have to be offended by it even if it is intended as an insult.

Fourth of all, even if you were offended, so what? Does that mean we are supposed to abolish any insulting word from language so nobody would be offended? Again, you are pretending like it's the n-word or something. I am not saying play patty cakes with people, call racists racists, and call SJW's SJW's. Call everything for what they are. But the issue is when you just leave it at that without any desire to actually engage with them or anyone like them. That is the lazy way out which does absolutely nothing for the cause.

Again, MLK's fight is absolutely not the same fight today. What reforms are SJW's fighting for today? MLK was not fighting racist speech or beliefs. He was fighting racist actions that infringe on people's freedoms. There is a world of difference. Also, MLK engaged with his opponents. SJW's do not engage in any meaningful way, instead they rant and then run away. MLK was fighting to get equality for the helpless minority. SJW's are not interested in equality, they are only interested in isolating their opponents because now the tables have turned and they have the power while their opponents have become the powerless minority. SJW's are completely assbackwards from what MLK was doing. They think they are the same, but they are far from it.

User avatar
DBSeeker
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:30 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby DBSeeker » Fri Nov 25, 2016 5:33 am

The point is that you are arguing against the Oxford Dictionary.

Nothing else needs to be said. You are trying to create your own new definition independent of the dictionary.

Lord---Scary Owl
Posts: 910
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 1:53 am
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Lord---Scary Owl » Fri Nov 25, 2016 6:36 am

Seriously write a bestseller called

The Logics of Men

Giant Killer General
Posts: 1591
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Honkey: Here's What Your Boy Has Planned NEXT:

Postby Giant Killer General » Fri Nov 25, 2016 11:26 am

Okay so yes, this is the core of the disagreement. You think that SJW only means all liberals / progressives. I am arguing against one defintion from one dictionary? Surely you are aware that terms such as this can have multiple different definitions from multiple dictionaries, and that their popular, everyday usage might even deviate from a dictionary's official definition (which is how definitions and meanings of terms evolve, just as this term has). This from http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior explains our disagreement quite well:

"Social Justice Warrior" (abbreviated "SJW") is a once positive term for "progressive" that turned into a derogatory term circa 2011. While there are "fundamental disagreements" over the definition of a Social Justice Warrior, they tend to fall into two categories:
1) A reactionary snarl word used to dismiss the concerns of liberals, progressives, feminists, and supporters of political correctness.
2) A more nebulous term referring to loonier members of the Social Justice camp that are either misguided, only in the movement because it's currently "hip", advocate extremist actions (such as verbal, emotional, and/or physical  violence), or use Social Justice to mask ulterior motives that have existed in just about every movement since the dawn of time.


So you are using definition 1, I am using definition 2. It should also be pointed out that definition 1 is typically used by right-wingers (some not all), which is probably why you have built up such an offense to its use. Personally I have always dismissed this usage as an emotional misuse of the term since it loses all value and meaning then, which is why I am totally not offended this use. Definition 2 is used by everyone, including liberals.

There is also this:

Problems with the term

The problem with this term is the usual problem with all snarl words: it is used to discredit/smear ANYONE who dares to criticize the social status quo in terms of gender and race relations. Recent incidents of internet drama have revealed that many people on the internet believe in a vast "SJW" conspiracy to "ban hurt feelings." This snarl word has no meaning because to the average anti-equality reactionary, absolutely anyone with any kind of open opinion that minorities are human beings is apparently enough to saddle people with the "SJW" moniker.

Of course, as with any ideology — humans being humans and therefore not angels — people do exist who take the language and ideas of social justice advocacy and weaponise them into tools to serve power and dominance (in ordinary language, these people are called bullies). And again, as with any ideology, there are people who ride the social-justice train of thought too far, into a bitter version of Cloud Cuckoo-land that interfaces poorly with the reality-based community. This cannot be helped. Every identifiable group of people has its share of assholes, and whatever has power for good can be subverted. The error of the thinking behind the phrase "social justice warrior" is to claim that all advocates of social justice are equivalent to their cause's worst representatives.
Reasonable people, however — both within and outside of social-justice advocacy — are quite able to address and label such behaviour without resorting to snarl words or tarring an entire community with a broad brush.


(Although I slightly disagree with this, as I think use of the term is totally fine if used well, just like any word).

Bottom-line is that plenty of people use the term in the way I used it (especially other liberals / progressives), know what it means, and have no problem with its use. And this is regardless of any clinging to the Oxford dictionary's definition. I would think that you would know that. As I said before, if you don't like that particular usage of the term then you must also be willing to provide an alternative to use in its place that conveys the same meaning. I even helped you out and gave you one: regressives. So if you want to just acknowledge regressives do exist and that term is better used in its place, then we can agree and move on.

Semantics is really not what is important here. What is important is that these people do exist, they are a problem, and they need to be talked about and challenged. I am not sure why you find that so hard to concede. To continue arguing semantics of terms while also ignoring the underlying problematic people it is meant to describe is a complete dodge and intentional distraction / re-direction from the real discussion to be had.


Return to “Free For All”