Maybe don't imply anyone who isn't a hardcore red rose Bernie supporter hates Bernie more than Trump.

Done with this thread.

I'll say one more thing: I love how people here were quick to embrace a far-right bigot with a *ton* of verifiable history only because he showed sudden support for Bernie and has strong anti-establishment feelings.

And no, it's not Joe Rogan.

I said what I said plainly, I didn't imply anything. You're the one interpreting it wrong. I didn't say just "anyone" I said corporate Dems. That doesn't include regular degular ass Dems such as yourself. If you felt some type of conviction with my statement, that prolly says something about you and it'd be wise to sort that shit out before you come at someone like that. Or if you're unsure of what I meant maybe a follow-up question for clarification would've done you good.

Well, this mirrors my fear, that the conservative democrats, the democratic leaning media and Hillary Clinton will keep denouncing Sanders after the primaries - as they currently do - instead of turning to attacks against Trump.

Do you talk about Tucker Carlson? Who is embracing him?

And what do you make about the media propping up quickly ultra-far-right John Bolton, after the possibility arised he might have dirt on Trump (then in reality he only wants to sell his book).

I think this is a pretty good analysis of the whole Joe Rogan situation: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/1/27/21081876/joe-rogan-bernie-sanders-henry-kissinger

EDIT: I probably should state where I stand. Interestingly enough, I am mostly a consequentialist. But there are red lines for me. But they are differently than the one described in the article. I am very deeply against killing. And that actually makes war and support for war a non-excusable fault for me, so I think Kissinger and Powell are much much worse than Joe Rogan, but not only from a consequentialist view, but also from a deontologist view. But that makes my rigid rules different than what was laid out in the article.

User Requested removal

User Requested removal

Fear is a strong feeling, and as all strong feelings it turns off rational thinking. Therefore fear is very bad for basing political decisions on. But we can't ignore the fears either, because strong feelings while detrimental to rational thinking are still real and existant. We should therefore reduce the fears and reintroduce thinking rational about the issues. Most christians and most muslims are fine, and I say that as an atheist. Some of the messages in the religious texts are harmful, but over the centuries people got used to ignoring stuff in their religious texts or reinterpret it. Still, there are a few christian fundamentalists and islamic fundamentalists, that are damaging or endagering society (Westboro Baptist Church for instance). We shouldn't ignore these real dangers, but also shouldn't vilify everyone in these religious groups.

I want also add, that as fear is a strong emotion, it is despicable to use said fear for political gain. Fearmongering is used among the left and the right, and in both cases it is hurtful for all.

Even though we are way less likely to be religious or affiliated with an organized religion than non-queer people, a majority of the queer community are either religious or spiritual (believe in a creator/creators.) I myself being religious as well.

Religious thought changes over time to reflect the society in which their followers live. What was once unacceptable in a religious doctrine/teaching could become acceptable and vice versa when society changes and the followers interpret it differently from before. For Catholicism, that's what the Reformation essentially was.

On the whole, religion isn't bad but when taken to the extreme and without humane rational thinking it can become incredibly dangerous.