Seriously, Richard? Dawkins Pushes TERF Declaration

Hmmm. How do we not have an "applause" smiley? Anyway, 100% agree with Albert. Left or right, they're both the same. Any "ism" is the same, ultimately: we're smarter and better than you and therefore we will dictate your behaviour and beliefs.
Fuck. That. Humanity is a pack of howling monkeys throwing shit at each other and none of them have any claim to moral authority over me.

I hate to horrify your tiny little mind, but the tug of war of philosophies is how human history has ticked since forever.
Nazis are recognized as the epitome of evil because they lost.
They win, you get the Mirror Universe.
I mean, we can go down a rabbit hole of are things wrong because they unpopular or unpopular because they're wrong, but you're not capable of holding up your end on that discussion.
Five posts in, you'll be calling someone a "dick holster" and that process will be derailed.
I'm not telling you anything shocking, you know yourself, you must (albeit bitterly) agree with me.

The irony here is delicious.

God, you're stupid.

I'm sorry, but the round Earther is smarter than the flat Earther.
Vax is smarter than anti-vax.
Just because some douchebags act superior because they pretentiously use more forks at dinner doesn't nullify that equation.

Hey, you can call black people monkeys at your supper table all you want, it's when you take it out in public you're gonna butt heads with people who disagree.
You and UA want it to be consequence-free.
The constitution doesn't guarantee that.
And you damned well know it.

I'm no better than a murdering rapist because I swear on the internet?
You're bad at philosophy.
Stop doing it.
Stop doing the thing you're bad at.
It embarrasses you.

Says the guy who thinks ass jokes are clever.

If my ass jokes were transphobic, and coming out of the mouth of Dave Chappelle, you'd be lapping them off the floor and moaning.

I am not and never was talking about simple disagreement or criticism. You champions of your selective "consequence" culture need to grow a spine and admit what you want: power. Power to dictate language, imagery and every aspect of human discourse. Power to punish people for not repeating your opinions back to you verbatim. Power to put some real force behind your self-appointed court stenographer behavior.

There is a reason no functioning society of any real size operates as a pure, direct democracy, and this silly bullshit illustrates it perfectly.

petition to change UA's name to "Haystack"?

You just described the Trumpists.
They want Hollywood replaced by Pureflix.
They want the world of "A Handmaid's Tale" for women.
They want blacks, browns, and yellows to not vote anymore.
They want Nova, Tererun, and Amaris dead in a landfill.
It's not tinfoil, they've said the quiet parts out loud cuz they thought Trump was getting re-elected.

In our world, guess what?
Not only do you still get to see your MCU movies, you get Dave Chappelle too.
Much as he cried crocodile tears, he didn't lose his job, he played through his whole Netflix contract.

And Gina Carano?
Fuck her, she's an anti-vaxxer, that gets people killed.
She's a murderer.
She's lucky she's not in a cell.
Bill Burr's still on Mandalorian, and he's not "PC".

What other stupid outrage shit have you got for me to shred into confetti?
Cuz I'll shred anything you've got.
The best you've got at the depths of your soul doesn't give me one drop of sweat.

And most posters on here agree with the notion that individually we all capable of making individual decisions.

The point of contention seems to be that the Left is pointing out inequalities exist and the Right insists they don't because individually, you don't apply inequalities to others.

No one is insisting "collective rights override individual rights. For the most part, those of us on the Left are just saying that individually, those who do experience those inequalities have the same individual rights as those who do not experience those inequalities.

I honestly do not understand why each side cannot and will not see the other side.

He came around!

"Ask not what my country can do for me but what can I do for my country."

I work with conservatives all of the time. Some of the people in my mutual aid group are conservative. We just agree that hungry, homeless people need help, and that we should help them instead of standing around jacking off about how there's a problem. That is the beauty of direct action. Where we get hung up is on propaganda. Until I actually use the word "socialism" or "communism," most conservatives will often go along with my positions on things. However, they've been conditioned to reject trigger words. I had to break out of it, and I help others break out of it, because it runs deep. I can only speak for the US, but from birth to death, we are inundated with how great our society is, how good we have it, and how we should be thankful we're working, among other things, and it has gone from a simple acknowledgment that work must be done (true), to accepting the worst of conditions for your mental, physical, and emotional well-being in order to please someone who does not give a damn about them outside of what value can be extracted from them.

People can be convinced to work against their own interests. They can be conditioned to see bad outcomes as necessary rather than avoidable. They can be fooled. We can all be fooled, and many of us are, every day, a thousand little mind traps that ensnare us and keep us from getting away so we can see it from the outside. I could spend paragraphs on it, but I'd honestly rather not at the moment. Suffice to say, we're not as different as we are lead to believe, and we're not as hopeless a cause as some imagine.

Exactly. Except, it's not just conservatives. Liberals also fall for trigger words and phrases as well. It's not politics keeping us apart, it's "trigger words and phrases" and refusal to try to understand another's point of view.

Go ahead, name 3.

For Conservatives I can name:

-Socialism
-Redistribution
-Obamacare
-Representation
-Social Justice
-Anything if you add "black" to it

Case in point. Refusal to acknowledge one's own shortcomings.

Kennedy was referencing a voluntary feeling of association and the common good, not a social order enforced by jackbooted thugs and thought police.
This is where this kind of thing always breaks down. Ideally, human beings would be altruistic, disinterested agents who would voluntarily work together for the betterment of all. The reality of humanity is that it's a short-sighted, self-interested mob of "me first" monkey-boys out for immediate gratification.

To be fair.....



there's a whole culture of liberal kids being triggered by a great many things on university campuses across America

But those are stupid kids with no real life experience and I personally don't rate them much at all

Depends on what you mean by "triggered".
If someone throws slur words around, I know they're trash.
If they use dog whistles to slur words, I know they're cowards.
Even Chappelle knows "urban" is code for black, and "special rights" is code for gays.
He put it in a fucking skit.
I find it funny when Chappelle fans rail against the notion of dog whistles when Chappelle knows they're a thing.

Stupid kids grow up to be stupid adults. Especially if they're sheltered from anything that might "upset" them.

You're stupid.
There, by your own lame thin definition, I've jackboot thought policed you.
Which is why you're stupid.

I'll grant you the college kids, I'd say "politically aware" college kids in general overreact to the slightest micro-aggressions regardless of which side they find themselves on.

But employed adult lefties? I can't think of any buzzwords that blind them to everything else like the righties have. Some of them go ballistic at the slightest accusation of sexual misconduct against a male politician, but that's all I can think of.

Barack Hussein Obama had eight years to enforce a social order with jackbooted thugs and thought police, why weren't you dragged out into the street and shot for being such an independent free thinker during that time?

Maybe no buzzwords, certainly nothing like the word "socialism" that gives some people a fricking heart attack, but I do recall some Trump tweets sure sent some adult libs into a tizzy

A lot of those were Hollywood people mind you, who I don't rate much at all either

Talking about certain subjects can get some liberal minded folks going. For example, if I talk about Putin, or China, that gets some concerned looks. Communism works on liberals, too. When I started talking about being a communist, I got some interesting reactions, including here. No one is immune to conditioning, whether it be liberals, conservatives, communists, anarchists, everyone can be conditioned to believe or disbelieve, to dismiss or accept without evidence. It's one of those snares I was talking about earlier.

Oh, like the fact America had slavery and a bunch of racist shit?

The GOP would have you believe teaching THAT leads to kids hating being white and American.

thing is that not only we do see the "other side", we see it for what it often is.
Generally a bunch of straw covered slippery slopes, as evidenced here by Lanz and UA.

Ehhhh... I'm not saying anyone is perfect or immune to bias, but you're speaking in generalities here.

Jenee claimed it was both sides doing something I've specifically only seen righties do. We've all seen those memes, "the government better not try to get involved with my social security cheques," or "Obamacare is evil, thank god I'm covered by the affordable care act," or the more generic ones where someone suggests a distinctly socialist policy while saying it's an anti-socialist policy and a righty loves it.

I'm asking her to show me the equivalent of that coming from the left.

The contention is on the word "rights." because from the right, all people do have the same rights.

Inequality between arbitrarily defined groups in American society is usually not a violation of anyone's rights. Small-statured persons' rights aren't violated because they're unlikely to get in the NBA; the cognitively disadvantaged have no right to an Ivy League education.

When you say someone's rights have been violated, I require that you show me how that individual has been wronged. It isn't nearly enough to say they're part of group X and therefore...

And a violation requires an identifiable violator to be actionable. Accusing society or the system does not identify a responsible party.

And rights, as the right sees them, cannot confer obligations on others (beyond not transgressing on the right). You can have a right to express yourself, but not a right to be heard, for example. If your "right" requires the service of another, it is an anti-right for them.