Quantcast
Society lets you go from an asshole to "truther" with one word

Forums - General Discussion - Society lets you go from an asshole to "truther" with one word

Shadow1980 said:
sc94597 said:

Many people who rail against SJW's are not "right-wing", but moderates, liberals, and even progressives who realize that SJW's are akin to the religious right in the way they tolerate (or don't) others.

I'm gonna need citations showing that "SJWs" are by and large some intolerant anti-freedom scourge and not just a bunch of nitwits who take political correctness a bit too far.

They include very prominent liberals/social democrats like Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris.

Ah, yes. The "New Atheists," a movement defined by its intolerance and seething hatred of anything remotely religious in nature. Not content to simply not believe in God, they are actively, vocally, viruently anti-religion. What makes them "anti-SJW" instead of "SJW" is that their ire isn't simply reserved for the dominant religion of their own country, but for all religion everywhere regardless of what form it takes. According to many, an American or European railing against Christianity is being "politically correct," while one that is railing against Islam is being "politically incorrect," but the New Atheists do both. I guess their overall offensive attitude towards the religious, their belief that those who believe in a god of some kind are not just stupid but also dangerous, makes them un-PC. Ironically enough, militant atheists, despite their lack of religious beliefs, resemble religious fundamentalists in their fervor, their belief that those who don't share their beliefs are dangerous, an attitude towards more inclusive nonbelievers that reeks of "Heretic! Heretic!", and the rabid fanaticism of many of their own followers. People like them have no place in the social discourse, because their beliefs and attitudes are inherently uncivil and their stance on religion wouldn't have been too far out of place in the Soviet Union. They're simply the atheist counterparts to the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world. They're all men who made careers out of hating others.

I generally agree though that a subset of the people against SJW's (within what is called the alt-right) are doing so because they have more malicious intentions (they are actual neo-nazis and fascists.)

Most of the people I see on the internet who rail the loudest against "SJWs" tend to come from alt-right, MRA, neoreactionary, and other far-right internet-centric groups, and even in more "mainstream" conservative circles, such as hardcore Trump supporters and people who spend too much time listening to right-wing talk radio (esp. Limbaugh). And in my experience, there is a very dark underbelly to the segment of the population that is the most vocally anti-PC. The "right" to make off-color jokes without being rebuked by someone is hardly their biggest concern, and it touches on issues a lot more serious than that.

While I would place Richard Dawkins in the "militant athiest" group, I wouldn't do the same for Bill Maher or Sam Harris, they have more interests than their athiesm. There are proper reasons to be anti-Islam (albeit not anti-muslim.) It is an illiberal religious ideology, and that is true for those who follow it moderately too. Either way, you are wrong about the people against SJW's being solely right winged. 

Also you just aren't looking hard enough then. My favorite anti-SJW is Blaire White, a seemingly apolitical transgender woman who sees faults in third-wave feminism. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDmCBKaKOtOrEqgsL4-3C8Q

I doubt she is in cohoots with the alt-right, and while she sympathizes with MRA's I don't think she describes herself as one (I can be wrong.) 



Around the Network
JWeinCom said:

Well half of those are bad examples anyway... but...

In 28 states you can be fired for being gay without recourse. There are people actively fighting to keep it this way. Gay people can not share benefits with their partners, adopt, and so on.

Women earn significantly less than men and are often perceived as less capable despite being otherwise qualified. Studies have shown biases towards labeling women as "chatty", "talkative", or "gossipy" even in cases where they have not been.

A skinny bodytype is definitely preferred. People underweight on BMI are perceived as healthier and more attractive than those within the normal range. Magazines photoshop already thing people to make them abnormally thin, then promise advice on how to reach these unattainable goals.

If you didn't realize when you were typing it, the common denominator in all of these examples is power. The top example is an example of people in power talking about the less powerful group. Quite often these groups have the power and influence to impose, or at least attempt to impose, their will on the less powerful group. So that's the difference here.

I don't see any facts here.



sc94597 said:

While I would place Richard Dawkins in the "militant athiest" group, I wouldn't do the same for Bill Maher or Sam Harris, they have more interests than their athiesm. There are proper reasons to be anti-Islam (albeit not anti-muslim.) It is an illiberal religious ideology, and that is true for those who follow it moderately too.

The same argument could have been made about Christianity in the Middle Ages, what with the Catholic Church's Crusades and Inquisitions. But eventually they "mellowed out" and have rid themselves of violent fanaticism (violent Christian fundamentalism in general is vanishingly rare). There's no reason that Islam cannot itself go through its own Renaissance where the violent militant fundamentalists become persona non grata to the majority of the faith. I tend to believe that religion itself isn't the problem, but rather political authoritarianism perverts religion to its ends. The Soviet Union, especially under Stalin, was just as hypermasculine, anti-homosexual, and otherwise socially regressive as any fundamentalist sect despite their atheism. Democracy, respect for human rights, nominal secularism, political stability, and increased standards of living and economic opportunity are antidotes to violent fanaticism. Turkey has for most of its post-Ottoman history shown that a predominantly Muslim country can be a functional state that eschews the violent authoritarianism that plagues the rest of the region. Iran used to have this prior to the U.S./UK-backed coup in 1954 that installed the Shah, and Tunisia seems like they could be headed towards having a functional, peaceful, democratic society if all goes well. It can be done, but it's going to be a very long, rough process.

Either way, you are wrong about the people against SJW's being solely right winged.

Well, I did say "mostly," not "solely." It does seem that the people who complain about "SJWs" all the time tend to use language and rhetoric that sounds an awful lot like your run-of-the-mill internet right-winger, and generally never have anything nice to say about liberals and usually nothing bad to say about conservatives. Speaking of which...

Also you just aren't looking hard enough then. My favorite anti-SJW is Blaire White, a seemingly apolitical transgender woman who sees faults in third-wave feminism. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDmCBKaKOtOrEqgsL4-3C8Q

I doubt she is in cohoots with the alt-right, and while she sympathizes with MRA's I don't think she describes herself as one (I can be wrong.) 

Well, she certainly doesn't come across as a liberal, and her general language does tend to echo that of right-wing internet movements,and she seems to have a lot of fans on conservative and right-wing blogs. She definitely complains about the "regressive left" a lot. If she's not a right-winger of some kind, that would be surprising as hell. She seems to be one of those oddities whose political and social beliefs (such as her opinions on the "bathroom issue") are totally at odds with who they otherwise are as a person, kinda like how Milo Yiannopoulos makes oddly homophobic comments despite being a gay man himself and generally aligns himself with a movement that thinks he's a degenerate pervert for being attracted to other men.



Shadow1980 said:
sc94597 said:

While I would place Richard Dawkins in the "militant athiest" group, I wouldn't do the same for Bill Maher or Sam Harris, they have more interests than their athiesm. There are proper reasons to be anti-Islam (albeit not anti-muslim.) It is an illiberal religious ideology, and that is true for those who follow it moderately too.

The same argument could have been made about Christianity in the Middle Ages, what with the Catholic Church's Crusades and Inquisitions. But eventually they "mellowed out" and have rid themselves of violent fanaticism (violent Christian fundamentalism in general is vanishingly rare). There's no reason that Islam cannot itself go through its own Renaissance where the violent militant fundamentalists become persona non grata to the majority of the faith. I tend to believe that religion itself isn't the problem, but rather political authoritarianism perverts religion to its ends. The Soviet Union, especially under Stalin, was just as hypermasculine, anti-homosexual, and otherwise socially regressive as any fundamentalist sect despite their atheism. Democracy, respect for human rights, nominal secularism, political stability, and increased standards of living and economic opportunity are antidotes to violent fanaticism. Turkey has for most of its post-Ottoman history shown that a predominantly Muslim country can be a functional state that eschews the violent authoritarianism that plagues the rest of the region. Iran used to have this prior to the U.S./UK-backed coup in 1954 that installed the Shah, and Tunisia seems like they could be headed towards having a functional, peaceful, democratic society if all goes well. It can be done, but it's going to be a very long, rough process.

Either way, you are wrong about the people against SJW's being solely right winged.

Well, I did say "mostly," not "solely." It does seem that the people who complain about "SJWs" all the time tend to use language and rhetoric that sounds an awful lot like your run-of-the-mill internet right-winger, and generally never have anything nice to say about liberals and usually nothing bad to say about conservatives. Speaking of which...

Also you just aren't looking hard enough then. My favorite anti-SJW is Blaire White, a seemingly apolitical transgender woman who sees faults in third-wave feminism. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDmCBKaKOtOrEqgsL4-3C8Q

I doubt she is in cohoots with the alt-right, and while she sympathizes with MRA's I don't think she describes herself as one (I can be wrong.) 

Well, she certainly doesn't come across as a liberal, and her general language does tend to echo that of right-wing internet movements,and she seems to have a lot of fans on conservative and right-wing blogs. She definitely complains about the "regressive left" a lot. If she's not a right-winger of some kind, that would be surprising as hell. She seems to be one of those oddities whose political and social beliefs (such as her opinions on the "bathroom issue") are totally at odds with who they otherwise are as a person, kinda like how Milo Yiannopoulos makes oddly homophobic comments despite being a gay man himself and generally aligns himself with a movement that thinks he's a degenerate pervert for being attracted to other men.

I am not a Christian. So i do not know if that is suppose to mean something to me. All I know is that many muslims today throw people like me off buildings. Christians today do not. I agree, there is no reason muslims can't pick and choose what to believe like Christians. But we are talking about what they are today, and by and large it they aren't there. We live in liberal politicies. Why would we want to go through the pain of reforming Islam? Let the muslims reform it. A sizable minority of muslims support views of the extremists even if they do not support the extremists themselves. That isn't something I am comfortable with. I am pro-immigration though, and think they should be let into the U.S, but the moment muslims try to implement Sharia law I think there will be a problems.

Many people on the left like Sargon of Akkad (he took the political compass test and landed in the bottom left quadrant) use the terminology "regressive left" to distinguish the SJW's from reasonable liberals. I think he even coined it. I do not see how it is a right-wing term. Also Blaire White seems mostly apolitical to me. She only comments on social issues. Many right wing and left wing people support her because being anti-SJW isn't really a left-right issue. Remind me what her position is on the bathroom issue. If I recall correctly, isn't it if you can pass as a woman use the woman's bathroom and likewise for trans men? If you think people like Milo and Blaire are rare you should meet more LGBT people. 

http://msblairewhite.com/breaking-trans-bathroom-debacle/

Her position is neutral. How is this right-wing?

"

The Republican lawmakers on the other hand, seem to think that bathrooms are rape hot spots. If someone is morally bankrupt enough to commit an act of rape or sexual assault, do you really think a caricature of a man or a woman on the door is going to stop someone from entering to act it out? "



sc94597 said:
JWeinCom said:

Again, we seem to be getting lost in the analogy a bit.  My point is, just like we have to defend all of the weaker individuals in these examples, we could scale that up.

A girl is more likely to be raped then a man, so in a risky situation you'd want to defend her more strongly.

In society at large, gays are much more likely to be the victim of discrimination, so we want to defend them more strongly. 

Like I said, we need to be more vigilant in protecting the weak from the strong, because, by definition they are weaker.  That's why there is a taboo against attacking minority groups that do not go the other way.  It's not about morality, but about practicality.

Do you think this would happen in the modern world? I understand how it could happen in the post-Jim Crow south circa 1965(and it still happened anyway, even with anti-discrimination laws; quotas were met and nothing more) but in today's world? Is there rampant examples of gay people losing their jobs because they come out as gay? 

Thankfully no.  But that doesn't mean it can't again.  I think Nazi Germany is the best example of a case where a seemingly modern society took a slide way back.  Also keep in mind that the middle east was not as super fundamentalist and crazy as it is now till about the 50's when they took a step way back.

I don't think that we're going to be in a situation like that in the near future, but I think that part of why we won't be is because we take it seriously when we see that kind of stuff happening. 

Jobs are also about money. If you are qualified and making them money, no rational employer is going to let you go because you are gay or black. It is only in organizations that don't wish to purely profit that we see gay people fired for being gay (and these are mostly religious organizations.) I think the cultural environment can handle this. Also, it neither reality that a whole class of people will be pushed out of a job market in today's world. Most corporations see the backlash that would come with one of their managers firing somebody for being gay, black, or a woman and have much more stringent (and enforceable) policies on it than anti-discrimination laws. 
Not all employers are rational.  I would guess you've seen a situation where a person gets a promotion over another when they're less qualified.  Is it realistic that a whole race or group will be blackballed from a profession?  No.  But it shouldn't even be possible.  We've seen lots of irrational stuff happen in the world.

Yes, how a boss (and your coworkers) view you and how you live your life can affect how they interact with you at work. Even if the government weren't involved, most bosses wouldn't have "complete and total authority" over who they want to hire. They have rules in place by the organization they are part of. 

But then the boss of the organization would have complete and total authority.

I think all individuals should have the freedom to associate (or not associate) with whom they want. If a person has a small business and they don't want to hire black people, so be it, but when they see themselves out of business because of public backlash, they can't blame anybody but themselves. If they are out of business because the government shuts them down, then they hold that resentment toward the government and fuel more racism. Social osctracization and cutting into one's pocket is much more motivating than laws that can be avoided. But I guess, my question is, do you think anti-discrimination laws prevent discrimination? I don't think they do. They just make people hide their discrimination under false justifications. "I didn't fire him because he was black, I fired him because he came to work late x  number of days" Meanwhile the white guy might had come to work late twice as much, but because the employer doesn't want to fire him nor does he need an excuse he gets away with it. Without  strong proof, and there never really is, the law isn't really enforceable, and because they must hide it, people can't punish them socially. I love it when bakeries don't sell to gay people, because I know there will be backlash. Heck just look at the recent backlash (in Southern states no less) with regards to transexual bathroom discrimination laws. People have progressed culturally enough to be trusted with freedom. 

I can't honestly answer that question.  I really don't know.  It is pretty clear that over the last 50 years or so we have much less discrimination in terms of hiring.  It's hard to say if that's because of the laws or simply because of changing social attitudes. You're talking about mostly service based industries which rely on general public support.  It may be easier to get away with in different businesses.  In the case you gave, the black person would at least have some hope of legal recourse if there was a law on the book.  

This works with hard sciences, often social sciences have conflicting data due to poor methodology and complexities. There are many more lurking variables. In this case I don't think there is sufficient data to say anyone thing contributes to the wage-gap, but there is sufficient data to say that many different things contribute a little bit to it, and it adds up. 
Fair enough.  That's one example anyway.  I think overall it's hard to argue that men are not the more socially powerful group.
In 2015, 8,907 woman (47.6%) and 9798 men graduated Medical School in the U.S. In comparison, in 2013 20% of Physics bachelor's were women, 38% Earth Science Bachelor's were women, 48% of chemistry bachelor's were women, 19% of engineering bachelor's were women, and 42% of math and statistics bachelor's were women. I can't find any data on graduate school, but the percentages are probably smaller if I were to hazard a guess. 
I would be curious to see if these percentages are consistent with the workforce.  Women have been overrepresented in colleges in general for a while now, but I don't know if that has translated to the workplace.

Why not instead of taking a "special effort" instead we take a stance that violence against every one, and the incitement thereof is bad, regardless? 

Because when one group is particularly targeted, we have to make sure our prevention efforts are focused on that.  We don't really need to say "all sexual abuse is bad" because, while it happens to men, the victims are overwhelmingly female.  If it's females who are most vulnerable, that has to be reflected in the discussion.  
I mean, we could fight for laws to protect heterosexual rights in the workplace, but would that really be the best use of our time and energy?
Bulimia (and eating disorders in general) can be caused by much more than society rewarding people for being skinny. 
Socialcultural ideals are only one of many reasons why a woman might be bulimic. Since we don't know and can't know who or who doesn't have these mental problems, we should treat attacks on people for being skinny the same as we do for people who are overweight, as horrible body-shaming. 
I would have to look into it, but if I were a betting man I would guess that the amount of skinny people who feel negative because of being underweight is much less than the reverse.
I don't view this as a power thing. It a normativity thing. Heterosexuals face fewer problems because they are normal. Not necessarily because they hold more power.  It is also evidenced by the crazy number of closeted homosexual people who were/are homophobic. Often these people are leaders in the suppression of other homosexuals. 
I think being normativity is tied into that power.  The fact that more people are heterosexual is part of why that group is far more powerful.  Which is why it's hard to imagine any scenario in which gay people will weild significantly more power than heterosexuals, and why heterosexuals really don't need much protection.

Malicious homosexuals might not be able to target heterosexuals, but they do target other people whom they view as different or non-existant, particularly bisexuals. Homosexuals and bisexuals historically faced the same problems with respect to heterosexuals. They are equally "powerful." Nevertheless, many gay and lesbian people have strong prejudices and disdain for bisexuals, because they believe bisexuals are just closeted homosexuals who don't know what they want, are greedy, or for a plethora of other reasons. This is explainable via normativity (homosexuals are more populous and accepted in society than bisexuals) and therefore some homosexual people feel threatened by bisexuals, very much in the same way some heterosexuals are by homosexuals. To them, anything that is different is weird, and must not exist -- those people are just confused or liars. I think that is the root of it. Homophobia (and bi?phobia) are just subsets of xenophobia. And I also don't think something necessarily has to be violent for it to be bad. 
Interesting, but I'm not quite seeing the connection.  I'm not saying something has to be violent to be bad, but violence is just the clearest example to work with.  

Which begs the question. How prevelant is organized hate-crime versus individual instances of malious, today? Let's ditch the gay vs. straight people scenario, because there really isn't an organized group of gay people with animosity towards straight people. How about we talk about black lives matters. They see things quite often in black vs. white. One can see in many of the more extreme subsets of black lives matters phrases like "kill all white people" or even debate at Harvard (of all places) about whether or not white people have a "right to affirm their lives."  Sure, they might not be able to act on this at the moment, but who isn't to say they won't act on it in the future if they get desperate? Telling a group of people they are constantly oppressed and marginalized by another certainly does much to radicalize them. I hope this is the extent of it, and I know the overwhelming majority of people will remain reasonable. 

It makes sense to think of things in power structures if  there was a race war of every white person versus. every black person, but that isn't how these hate crimes work. Often it is a small group attacking individuals in another group. That is why I don't think any racism is any worse or better than any other. Racism is no longer a popular movement, it is a movement for fringes. 
The OP seemed more concerned with general patterns in society than individual attacks. Systematic oppression is a different issue than individual attacks.  Not completely exclusive, but different. So, that's why I focused on that.  I don't think any form of racism is "better" than another, but some types are more dangerous.  As for racism being on the fringes, I dunno about that.  But even if it is, it could make a comeback real quick.  Again, to the Nazi Germany example, if there is serious economic or social strife, racism tends to thrive.

Also I want to dispute your claim "a girl is more likely to get raped than a man." If you include prison-rape statistics, men are sexually assaulted just as often as women. 

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301946?journalCode=ajph&

We assessed 12-month prevalence and incidence data on sexual victimization in 5 federal surveys that the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted independently in 2010 through 2012. We used these data to examine the prevailing assumption that men rarely experience sexual victimization. We concluded that federal surveys detect a high prevalence of sexual victimization among men—in many circumstances similar to the prevalence found among women. We identified factors that perpetuate misperceptions about men’s sexual victimization: reliance on traditional gender stereotypes, outdated and inconsistent definitions, and methodological sampling biases that exclude inmates. We recommend changes that move beyond regressive gender assumptions, which can harm both women and men.

Eh... if you want to count prison rape, I can just say "men are more likely to commit rape than women" :p

Personally, I don't think prison rape should be included.  Not like it's not a problem or anything, but if we're talking about preventing rape and sexual violence I don't think it makes sense to address both those problems together.  I think we both understood what we were thinking of when we were talking about rape and sexual violence and I don't think we were (I wasn't at least) thinking of prison rape.  Especially in the context of this conversation, I don't think it would make sense to include a nearly all male environment.

If you want to be technical about it maybe you're right.  To be clear, I was excluding prison rape from the equation, and unless otherwise noted, I'll be doing that pretty much always.



Around the Network

So, what I get from the thread is when you pick on a minority for something that isn't in there control, it's bad.
And when you pick on a majority, whose physical traits are deemed desirable by society, it's ok.

 

As in, it's bad to call a fat person ugly, and acceptable to call a skinny person ugly.

So like, people would have a problem if I called rosie odonnell ugly, but if I call Ariana Grande ugly, that's ok.

 

If someone were to call me ugly, I would laugh, because I would assume they are making a joke using sarcasm.
But if someone were to call my friend ugly, I would assume they were voicing their opinion because my friend doesn't have traits that are considered desirable by the majority of society.

Kinda like if you were to call me a cracker, and call my friend something else. Hmm, I don't think I actually get this thread.



pokoko said:
I never said it was about the gender.  What are you talking about?  And subjugation is automatically worse than being stabbed?  That's interesting.

Oh, yes, that's probably it, I wasn't being complicated enough, I should have put i a full page of qualifiers.  Goddamn, people.  Talk about sophistry and avoiding a point just to be contrary.  It's not even worth trying to have a conversation.  If you say a cat has soft fur someone will say, "but what if the cat was playing in tar in and got all crusty?  That has to be considered."  Fuck, you're right, he deserved to be stabbed.  We'll just assume that.  Conversation over.

Wow, you really excel at ignoring the actual points people make, forming strawmen, arguing against those, and then being a dick about it all. And ironically, you complain about other people "avoiding a point".

Subjugation is something that people do consciously in order to dominate others, whereas violence is generally an impulsive action in which the person is out of control emotionally.

And while you never said it was about gender, the fact that you put "he" on the stabbing and "she" on the rape demonstrates that it's what you were thinking. Otherwise, you would have used "he" for both or "she" for both. And given that your overall point is that you believe that the identity of the person changes whether something is acceptable or unacceptable, I find it hard to believe that your point with that example was that people consider stabbing to be something you can blame the victim for.

The part where you go "Fuck, you're right, he deserved to be stabbed." demonstrates that either you are intentionally ignoring the point, or lack basic comprehension. The point being made is that being stabbed doesn't necessarily mean you're the victim, whereas being raped always makes you the victim. Note that if you said "you were raped there, you should stop going there" isn't victim blaming. It's only the accusation that they were at fault for the rape because they were there that is completely unacceptable. And ultimately, as I said, it would generally be considered unacceptable in the case of stabbing, too - it's just not seen as being quite as bad as making the statement in the case of rape.

Because the world isn't about black and white absolutes, it's not "this is acceptable, that is unacceptable", it's "this is worse than that, but both are wrong".

But clearly, you aren't capable of understanding nuance.

User was moderated for this post

-Super_Boom



theprof00 said:

So, what I get from the thread is when you pick on a minority for something that isn't in there control, it's bad.
And when you pick on a majority, whose physical traits are deemed desirable by society, it's ok.

 

As in, it's bad to call a fat person ugly, and acceptable to call a skinny person ugly.

So like, people would have a problem if I called rosie odonnell ugly, but if I call Ariana Grande ugly, that's ok.

 

If someone were to call me ugly, I would laugh, because I would assume they are making a joke using sarcasm.
But if someone were to call my friend ugly, I would assume they were voicing their opinion because my friend doesn't have traits that are considered desirable by the majority of society.

Kinda like if you were to call me a cracker, and call my friend something else. Hmm, I don't think I actually get this thread.

Not picking on people. Said this countless times, I don't care for the jokes(I put bad examples). It's when we reach serious issues do we then see double standards having an effect.

For example, rape. Rape is a serious issue no matter the gender. However, it seems that people only care when a woman is raped. When a man's raped, it is turned into something to laugh about, with many people saying he deserved it.


Also, religious extremism. I never understood why I'm considered Islamophobic when i recommend a reformation for Islam(similar to the one for Christianity). I mean, why Islam in particular? It's not like criticizing it means I suddenly hate all Muslims and want them to die.

 

 

Additionally, never said fat people are ugly. I mentioned preferences. Some like tall, short, black, white, skinny, thick, and the list goes on. It'd be disappointing if you'd be considered a fat shamer because that isn't your preference. 



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

Soundwave said:
Shadow1980 said:
It seems that the people who rail against "SJWs" and "Tumblrinas" and "[insert right-wing internet neologism of choice]" are just as perpetually offended and easily "triggered" as those they're complaining about, if not more so. What people on both sides of the political aisle fail to realize is that many of the things they accuse the other side of, their side is just as guilty. There's plenty of double standard BS to go around for both conservatives and liberals.

Exactly, all these extremists can go to an island and fuck each other up the ass for the right to be "correct". 

Leave the rest of us moderates to run an actual functional society, the people who are far left or far right are generally people who angry at other people for their lot in life. 

Well... the moderates are the far marjority and the ones that rule society... extermists are just loud mouths with little real power. But they can harm individuals a lot.

@Thread.... I love when SJWs shows their true colors.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Liberal people preach tolerance but they aren't tolerant towards other opinions.

People complaining about racism are the people that keep it alive. Example: A black guy get's in a washing machine and comes out as asian. Everyone is pissed. A white guy gets in a washing machine and comes out as a black guy. Nobody bats an eye. (Both are real)
It's people like this that call racism on all these things that keep racism alive. Who the hell cares what color those people are. See the joke, get on with your life. Deal with it.
It certainly isn't helping by pressing your opinions through others people throats. It even has the opposite effect. Look at Trump, most people vote for him because he is against PC bullshit. They even think if Hillary gets the oval office Political Correctness will get even worse. I can't blame them for that.

If anyone has read '1984' of George Orwell here. PC ---> Newspeak.