I'm going to create an organization called Protect Our Environment. What is our proposed policy? We should club baby seals. Why are you offended? Our organization is called Protect Our Environment! Do you hate the environment?

Whether Antifa is good or bad, this is an incredibly vapid argument.



There's more to it than that. Citation They refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, but offered to provide other services. A bit of a tortured analogy, but it's like the difference between refusing to make a product for a white person and refusing to make a product you know will be used at a white supremacist rally. The Supreme Court sided with the bake shop.



Authoritarianism is not a left or right philosophy, it's an authoritarian philosophy. You can be a far-left authoritarian or a far-right authoritarian.



First of all, you cannot be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. CRT is a framework for analyzing history and government policy explicitly from the lens of impact on minorities. It borrows from Marxism in that it views these policies as a form of power dynamics between various classes. However, CRT now has a second definition (language evolves and all that) of education that focuses on sorting people into racial and social categories, and emphasizing discussions of privilege and generalized traits of groups of people. It's not "technically" CRT but shares many of the same axioms used in the creation of CRT. Yes, the right exaggerates it because it sells well, but a lot of it is incredibly stupid and insulting yet the left would rather play pedantic word games to dismiss the argument and call the opposition stupid instead of arguing whether the core of the argument is correct or not.

What are you refering to, here?

That is a well established fact. (you may note that I have not responded to, or indeed read, any of his comments here)

It was never not an attention span issue.

Complex and/or nuanced issues, require more words than a haiku.
Deal with it.

Ah yes, I forget that you don't actually bother to spend any time with understanding what you read, or thinking through anything you write, so naturally you don't take a lot of time, to write a long reply to a long text…

No I never did that. I said the exact opposite. As you know.

You have demonstrated before, that you are aware of the distincition between sex ang gender, to here you are clearly, knowingly, and intentionally, lying.

You know full well, that transgender people don't go around constantly change what they identify as, so that is, again, a lie.

No.
Ones "mental gender" (more commonly "gender identity", but I wrote it like that to distinguish mental vs physical) is just as physical/biological as ones physical gender. It is a physical aspect of ones brain, that is permanent and unchangable.
The only reason to talk of it separately from "physical"/"body", even though it is physical and part of the body, is that one usually talks of the brain and the rest of the body, separately …as that is, in many cases, a practical and useful distinction. (even if the terms used, are a bit inaccurate …and, to ignorant fools, a bit misleading)

Trans is a category that only trans people can join, and it has clear prerequisites.

Yeah, because people always love to be part of an ostracized group…
…and how do you choose to be born a particular way?

None of what you said, in any way addressed what I said. You realised that you had no countre-argument, and just ran away from the argument with your tail between your legs, and instead try to distract from it, like a coward.
When are you going to show any kind of ability or willingness for actual honest debate?
Rather than this dishonest and cowardly nonsense?

You are the one who made claims about Dave Chapelle. (hell, you are the one who first mentioned him!) Claims that you have not defended against contrary evidence or arguments, nor have you admited that you were, or even that you may be, wrong or mistaken.
…because you know you have no case, but you have to fragile an ego to admit when you're wrong.

…and if you're so ignorant about Chapelle, on what basis do you justify your strong claims about him?

Why do you trust some random youtuber's account of him?

Just because I labeled a couple few people you like as bigots, that means I label everyone a bigot?
…and I'm untrustworthy, because you don't like my conclusions?
You don't point to my argument, reasoning, or evidence, but instead that you don't like my conclusions? You wouldn't like me to be right, therefore I must be wrong?
…
So you don't follow the evidence where it leads, you chose where to go, and then chose what evidence to accept, that allows you to go there.

"No person can change their gender identity" is a clear statement of saying that it isn't voluntary.
This is a clear lie.

I note that you don't cite any terrorism statistics
…because they show that I'm correct.
Instead, you focus on things like what laws/regulations are done, or media coverage …which are irrelevant.
The media often disproportionally cover stuff, and political descisions are often bullshit based on bullshit.
The terrorism stats, however, are pure and simple fact.

Ah, so you listen to more niche rutinely dishonest far-right extremists. Not the more mainstream rutinely dishonest far-right extremists?
…
That is a difference without a distinction.

No.

You guys do that. Not the ones you're railing against

Because they are facts, and they have a severe impact.

We do need dedicated education about it, on how it is bad, and how to avoid it
…which is the exact thing that you are condemning.

None of which, has anything to do with CRT which, again, is a college/university level law subject.

I am all for religious freedom, but not religious privileges!
You don't get to say that you're above the law, or that you can chose what laws to obey or not, based on your religion!
That would violate Freedom of Religon! (and violate the 1st Amendment)
Religions and believers must never be discriminated against …or in favour of.

If you have a bakery, where you bake cakes for the public, then you have to bake cakes for the public. If you can't do that, due to your religious convitction: Get a different job!

Aside from your dishonest claim that I dislike Jews…
You do realise that there are plenty of Jews who don't believe in Judaism, right? …or who are atheists?
Jews are an ethnic group. Not a religious one.

I don't see why you felt the need to write that in two languages, but…
Those were not thoughts.
They were words.
…and they meant that the radio station condone, or at least accept, his opinions, if they continue to let him be their voice. Let him represent them.

What you are saying, in effect, is that people who have a platform/event, MUST invite people they strongly oppose. That they MUST actively pay, fund, support, promote, celebrate, people they strongly oppose, want nothing to do with, and find utterly disgusting.

You are arguing for Forced Speech, and against Free Speech.

Repeating the lie that, that was the only thing she did, doesn't make it any more true.

Again, you realise that you have no arguments against my words, that you have no case, so you instead try to distract from it, by trying to attack me …and it's a pitiful attempt, at an attack.

It is a parent's responsibility to protect, care, teach (not indoctrinate), and guide (not decide for them, what they must be/do …beyond making sure they don't do anything too dangerous/immoral/idiotic) their kids, to ensure that they become proper independent adults.
After that, it's up to them to take care of themselves.
Naturally, it is good to still help and support them, beyond that, but…
They have to earn their own wealth and position. Not be given it, completely unearned.

If what they can manage to make for themselves, is far too bad, then either you've done a shit job as a parent, or you're in a disfunctional country.

Families in countries with strong welfare and social safety nets, especially among those who are better off, have fewer kids.
It's in disfunctional and chaotic countries, with extreme poverty, where you find that people have tons of kids.

…
Everyone is a consumer.
Regardless of how much they work and/or earn, or how rich/poor they are.
Otherwise you die.
Or are you claiming that you don't eat or drink?

What I said, was the exact opposite of that.

…
Are you insane?
I kinds said the opposite (well, not exactly, but…)

Where I live? Yes …though they're far from perfect, imnipotent, or completely sufficient.
In the US? HELL NO! There are a rare few, very weak, unions, with very little power (except police unions, who are corrupt, criminal, and far overpowered)

No they can't.
Some can, but a very large proportion of the US population does not have that option.

Google run themselves into debt with their credit cards? WTF are you talking about?

No.
That does not follow.
1. I thought you believed in the Free Market! If GM fails, they should be allowed to fail, according to the Free Market!
2. GM are not the one and only source of goods and services!
3. If they are so vitally important, that they are too important to fail, then the owners should be allowed to fail, and government should simply (temporarily) take the company, and find some responsible people to sell it to.
(and in the case of, e.g., the companies who were responsible for the 2008 financial crash, due to wildly illegal practices, should have all responsible people put in jail …in addition to the steps I mentioned above. Well, except that there is no valid reason, for allowing any banks to be in private hands, anyway. they should all be nationalized)

Since when do I have any friends, in the US?

Xi doesn't own everything in China.
He controls everything in China.
He rules over China.

You think I made that claim, without having examples to back it up?
Textbook projection…

To cite a few examples, off the top of my head…
Kaifuku Jutsushi no Yarinaoshi and Tate no Yuusha are guilty of pretty much all of what I listed, aside from zealous nationalism, historical revisionism, and racism.
They're both seriously fucked up.

When it comes to zealous nationalism and historical revisionism, it's works that I haven't read or watched myself. (and why would I?)
Titles such as Manga Kenkanryu.
Also, the first Japanese feature-length animated film, "Momotarou: Umi no Shinpei" was, aside from generally being a very crap and incoherent movie, essentially wartime propaganda. (I watched it due to it's historical value …and almost fell asleep, in parts)

Oh, and I note that I forgot to include paedophilia!
Tate no Yuusha is massively guilty of that, and there are tons of other examples, but… You've already agreed that there are. (note that many isekai, have a person be reborn in the other world. In those cases, they tend to be 20-30 years older than they look, than their isekai-body, older than they have been in that world …and yet they tend to get into relationsships with children that are about the same age as their bodies. So, e.g., a seemingly 15 year old, who is actually a middle aged man, dating/fucking a 14 year old)

No need to remember, or look for, any more examples, of course.
All I need to show, is that examples exist.
Which I have.

Because that actually does matter.
Well, if they have no interest in getting a partner, that's fine, but being utterly incapable of getting one, or (far worse) not being able to get a partner or even a friend of the opposite sex, due to not treating them as human being…

You don't need to do any weight lifting, to have basic decent health.
…and it is completely irrelevant, to the issue of socializing.
You have still failed to show why you said "I'd be ashamed of my son if they were 16-18 and could not lift 20kg and was scared of any exercise", and how that makes any sense.

A baseless assumption.
One you have, quite nonsensically and irrationally, arrived at purely because we have differing views on inheritance.

I've already covered how trans jokes aren't off limits.
Again, you're just lying.

Then you admit that you were lying, when you said that it was being pushed down your throat?

1. How is that slutshaming? Are you saying that it is wrong, for women to wear skimpy clothing, with the intent to attract guys? Would that not make you the one who is slutshaming?
2. Again: Starfires choices, are not the free voluntary choices of a woman. They are choices of the MEN who write/draw her.

That paragraph is completely incoherent.

…says the guy who is all vinegar? Who has repeatedly insulted and slandered me, lied about what I've said, and done several other offensive things?
Also, just because it's a saying, doesn't mean it's true.

I'm not angry.
I don't get emotional about the nonsense you're spouting. Aside from how I try to be calm and objective… I've long since grown numb to the kind of nonsense, that you're spouting.

…and again, you've ignored a bunch of things (I'll not provide a list again, unless you actually start to answer them. It's not like you can't check yourself. Once you've started, I can point out any you've missed), trying to distract from them and sweep them under the rug, because you know that, in an honest debate, you would be proven to be utterly wrong, irrational, and immoral.
That's why you constantly lie about my argument, and/or try to distract attention away from them.
The fact that you feel that you have to stoop so low, have to resort to such cowardly and dishonest tactics…
That proves that you already know, deep down, that you can't make valid arguments for your positions.
That you know, you have no case.

Now how about you get a dose of integrity and/or self-respect, and start being honest?
If not, if you just continue to be more and more dishonest (you started out being at least partially honest, but…), then I see no point in wasting any more time on you.

Antifa is anti-fascism.
Nothing more, nothing less.
You're hypothetical organization, however, is a specific organization with specific members, ideals, policies, and actions.
That is completely different.
…and I did also point out, how Antifa protestors are never particularly violent, compared to any other protestors (all large protests, tend to have some bad actors, and where there are counter protestors, things can get a bit out of hand. Regardless of what causes and/or groups are involved. Far right protestors, however, do tend to be disproportionately violent. Significantly so)

They make cakes, including wedding cakes, for the public.
They refused to make a gay wedding cake.
Hence refusing to do they jobs!
Anything else is irrelevant.

…or refusing to bake a cake for Hitler's birthday (and yes, neo-nazis do celebrate it), or an anti-gay cake.
All of which shouldn't be allowed.
If you offer to make custom cakes for the public, then you must offer all of the above mentioned cakes.
Period!
You don't have to like what they request, or what they intend to do with it, but that is completely irrelevant.

I've heard someone argue that it means that the baker is forced to voice an opinion that he/she doesn't hold …but that is utter bullshit. When you're paid to bake a cake, the message is that of the customer. The customer is voicing an opinion. Not the baker.
When I print a text of mine on a printer, isn't opinions voiced by the printer, or the company that made it. It's my opinion, and mine alone.

Yes it is. It is inherently right-wing.
When looking at what right wing means, what defines it as right wing, it is clear that authoritarianism is right wing

…and you cannot provide a single example, of a left-wing authoritarian.
It cannot be done.
Do keep in mind, that I've already pointed out, how "communist" regimes aren't communist. If you want to cite a communist as an example, you'll need to address that, and point out how what I said is wrong. You need to show, communist or not, that the proposed left wing authoritarian, is left wing.

Whilst that is, technically according to US law, true…
1. US law isn't always obeyed (even court rulings, often go completely against what the law states. A law that only exists on paper, but isn't followed, isn't worth the paper it's written on), and it's not like most kids would know that they can refuse.
2. They are STRONGLY pressured into it, and would face severe (though not necessarily legal) consequences if they don't.
3. Just the fact that they are "supposed to" (or even just encouraged) do it, is seriously fucked up, and is something that only occurs in cults and some of the most cult-y fascist regimes. (like North Korea)

Dishonest right-wing propagandists, have started to brainwash people into thinking it has a different meaning.

The false meaning of CRT, has not even come close to being an established meaning.
Besides which: Most people protesting against CRT, when asked what it is, are unable to answer or admit that they don't know what it is.
You cannot have a second definition, that has no definition

No education sorts people into "racial" or social categories.
They merely talk about the "racial"/ethnic/social categories that exist.
They don't create them, or sort people into them.
The categories exist, and people fall into those categories, in accordance with the definitions of those categories.
(the different "races" are, of course, not different races. They are inconsistent social constructs. There is just the one human race …but they do exist as social constructs, and we can't get away from that)

As for "generealized traits", I have no idea what you're talking about.
If you mean mentioning the stereotypes that exist, and how they are wrong, and how you can't judge a person by their "race"…
Yeah, that happens.
If you mean that they teach that the different groups do have those traits…
That might occur in some occasional schools (it is the US, after all), but that wouldn't be what they wrongly call "CRT", but the exact opposite. It would be further proof, that what they are calling "CRT", is sorely needed.

Such as…?

No.
That absolutely does not happen.
To be more accurate, there may be some individual instances of that happening, but the overall response from the left, and any and all instances I've seen in mass media, is where the left points out that CRT isn't taught in K-12 AND how what they are claiming to be CRT, isn't what the right claims.
That it's basically just teaching actual history (rather than whitewashed revisionist history. I.e. propaganda), and saying that racism exists, and that it's bad to be racist.

Last edited by zarlan at 7:39 am, Nov 5 2021

Behold! The man that claims cancel culture does not exist, was trying (or at least hoping) to get a user banned from a forum because he did not like their views. Don't like what somebody says, accuse them of being a troll/bigot and get them banned.
Zarlan comes to the thread, claims the poll is invalidated because cancel culture apparently does not exist, then tries vehemently to convince people of his niche opinions that nobody has shown support for..

I can't even be bothered to reply to Zarlan's manuscripts anymore because he is clearly delusional pseudo-intellectual, like he refuses to read transdude's replies, yet I am expected to extend what he does not confer to others (I might as well read Wheel of Time chapters; much better writing). Not sure on his goal, other than claiming that I am lying and in actuality deep down I support his claims...
I never knew the UK had so many delusional people, maybe cause I've not lived there in awhile. Zarlan will only be happy when he can institute his own version of laws upon the world, in his world people can decide whatever their mental gender is, mental gender shall be the equivalent of birth sex, and all men shall be required to date women (men in dresses) otherwise they are "transphobic", and women shall be subjugated by force and death threats.
When the world is greeted with a leftwing politician (AOC) that won't even use the word women and opts for "menstruating person", then you know one of their goals is the elimination of women.

The thing is the poll is 56.5% in favour of "People are too easily offended", and had lamb phrased the question differently then it'd be more one sided. I did not know the context of the question till I hit up the forum, had the question been more of "do you support cancel culture to punish those you dislike?" "Yes there should be consequences for what you say/no, people are too sensitive and trying to get people fired is too far."

I found this channel earlier, and they have some apt and comical videos.
Basically what cancel culture supporters want to do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj77Pz1r718
The only achievable thing by cancel culture is to destroy people's lives and make them hate others for causing it.

The type of people they are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Ep6cd6iYc
Thankfully that type of person will always remain a minority, and all they can do is huddle together on twitter, unleash rage spirit bombs at anybody they can find not perfectly resembling them. The rest of the world embraces freedom of expression over censorship.

Last edited by Peep at 9:08 am, Nov 5 2021

Antifa is a political movement with no organization. If a big enough group call themselves Antifa, they are Antifa. There's no membership logs to say otherwise. So if said group goes and protests that we're not clubbing baby seals, it becomes either "I like Antifa and No True Antifa would club baby seals so it must be a false flag" or "I hate Antifa so this is what Antifa really is like." For a comparison, see Gamergate. Was it a movement for ethics in game journalism distorted by bad actors, or a harassment campaign with an innocuous cover? Depends if you like them or not.

Similarly, I've seen plenty of videos of Antifa getting violent. But this No True Scotsman argument and unreliable narrators make it hard to get an accurate sense of the scale.



That's not how it actually works. If you'd like it to work that way that's fine since you seem to be consistent about it. Most would come up with a way to say that bakers should have to make a cake for a gay wedding but reject the Hitler cake, so kudos to you.



It cannot be done because you have tautologically defined authoritarianism as right wing. That definition is false, but without being able to convince you otherwise it would be impossible to provide a counterexample because of the way you set it up. Even a Marxist uprising which is inherently left wing would suddenly become right wing because Marxism requires a powerful and controlling government and you've defined that as inherently right-wing.



Citation needed on people breaking the law or inflicting punishment. It's stupid, but not a big deal. It's not even like we're particularly patriotic anyway.



Call it CRT, social justice, anti-racism, wokism, progressivism, the far left, etc. I don't care. I didn't choose CRT as a name, but there is a cultural trend promoting very unhealthy ideas that is popular among colleges and making its way to K-12 teachers. There are numerous calls to implement anti-racism is K-12 education.



Education didn't invent social categories, but one can strongly or weakly self-identify with those categories and treat others as individuals or as members of that social class. For instance, do you feel self-conscious making race-based jokes to a friend of that ethnicity when you are reasonably confident both you and he wouldn't find it offensive? You may never be able to 100% get away from race, but you can emphasize it of de-emphasize it, for instance with the discussion of "whiteness." I personally believe that the current focus on "diversity" implicitly relies on the argument that being a member of a certain group makes you innately different from another person, which is the same argument used to justify racism.

And by stupid ideas and generalized traits, I mean ideas like how rationality and being on time are traits associated with "whiteness."



"Actual history" doesn't exist. You will always have to choose what to tell and what to leave out, and how to portray it. Historians have been arguing with each other since the invention of the academic field of history. Was America founded on slavery, or was it an uneasy compromise between the North who wanted to get rid of it and the South who depended on it? Was Robert E. Lee a traitor to his country, or a man who disagreed with slavery but nevertheless felt compelled to defend his homeland? Yet I notice a frequent trend to switch from, "CRT has a very specific definition" to "we're just teaching history" is very telling. It's such a jarring transition from "The details are very important" to "Here's a very slanted and simplistic summation of a massive topic."

A series where the protagonist was raped to the point of insanity by anyone and everyone, gets sent back to a point in time before all of this, and plays out his revenge fantasy? That's your prime example, the male equivalent of I Spit On Your Grave in fantasy land?


HOLY SHIT, you idiots are still ass-mad that a series depicted a woman giving a false rape allegation?


Had to look this up, it's a webcomic, that's essentially a period piece made in response to the 2002 FIFA tournament, which is still a hot button issue, and still being talked about.


What a surprise that a film made during a war was promoting the nation that it was made in. Do you also have issue with all those Popeye and Loony Tunes shorts that are racist and discriminatory against Germany and Japan?


And, what about series like Unbalance Unbalance, that's about middle-aged woman chasing after one of her students. OH, WAIT, THAT SERIES IS KOREAN! Let me refer to something of Japanese origin.

Does that mean you're going to go after Don't Meddle With My Daughter!, where the final arc is about how the mother (Who's in her 40's) falls in move with a teenage boy, who is sent back in time to when she was in her teens, proceed to fuck and have a kid, only to then have him sent back to the present where he's only a couple years older?


Just decided to pull up the most "non-biased" definitions that I could, and that seems to be from the 1999 World Book encyclopedia (As the 1998 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, nor the 2003 Encyclopedia Britannica, didn't have "right wing" anywhere):



How can people be taught about a "social construct" that doesn't exist outside of society and the simple way to abolish said "social construct" is to just ignore it's existence?


Why do you think the internet has endless jokes about Bongistan requiring licenses for butter knives?


That was hilarious.


These days, it just a water-cooler thread on 8Moe; with the most recent discussion surrounding people being horny for She-Venom and Vivian, the great soundtrack to SMTV and GotG, and a Times of Malta article talking about China making human-ape hybrids.

Last edited by Transdude1996 at 12:41 pm, Nov 5 2021

________________

people like you make the world hell to live in and ruin everything you had no part in the creation of or the community said creations made, you are a parasite that latches on later and demanded everything change to suit your delicate sensibilities and then scream at everyone who doesn't like the direction said product went in to eff off and make their own.

I feel like a lot of this relies on intent. Let's say two people go out to eat. One is a vegetarian and the other is not, is it rude for that person to order a meat dish? If the person is doing it to spite the other person, they should be more careful about what they say/do (but they won't, they're trolls. Some people are just assholes). However if the person likes chicken tendies and ordered some chicken tendies there's no intent, so how the vegetarian feels is entirely their issue. In my eyes it's more offensive to tell people what to do, so if the vegetarian pushes their beliefs on the other, that's way more offensive (and vise versa).

At that point can you have differences without offending each other? I know people who are offended by gays, should they have to act hetero-normative to avoid offended those people? People need to learn to get tougher skin to respect differences even if they dislike that difference. Though it's fine to feel offended over something, but it's how you handle it afterwards that matters. I feel like that's something the individual needs to work on rather than push responsibility on to everyone they meet and blame them.

https://archive.vn/1ZR8l - "A backlash against gender ideology is starting in universities"






That may work in USA where the laws and culture seek to protect freedom of speech, but maybe not the EU (I doubt non EU European countries are as culturally corrupt). It's still pretty sad a university had to be sued in order to end their witch hunt.
Even the prospect of a discussion gets you labelled as evil and you need to be bleached and scrubbed from society.

https://lgballiance.org.uk/gra/


Use taxes to fund an organization that will try to censor the media and universities (which also receive tax money).., then the government claims it doe snot have enough money to fund schools/libraries/The National Health Service (NHS).

No it's opposition to fascism …and anyone who doesn't, is thereby okay with (if not straight up in favour of) fascism
…but even if you say that it's a political movement with no organization, that still makes your argument about Antifa, completely incoherent.

No.
The people who are accused of going into antifa protests, to cause/incite violence, are people who clearly are against antifa protests, and for whom there is evidence, that they only went to the protests to cause violence, with the purpose of discrediting antifa.
…and don't forget the violence that is purely self defence, against counter protestors who get violent …or, indeed, police.
Also, all large protests tend to attract people who are more concerned with being able to commit violence and/or vandalism, under the cover of a protest and with the protection of the chaos and uncertainty that it can provide.

That isn't to say that no antifa protestors get violent.
As I've already said:
There are some of the genuine protestors do commit violence and/or vandalism
…but, again, that is true of all large protests.
Certainly not more true of antifa protests, than any others.

No.
What it depends on, is the facts.
Gamergate was misogynist trolls, harassing people. There were some claims about it being about bad journalism, but all of those claims about bad journalism have been debunked, so… Those claims are clearly no more than excuses for trolling and harassing anyone who goes against the notion that video/computer games must all be about violence, and that all female characters in them, must be ludicrously over-sexualized. (I like violent games, sure, but what's wrong with variety? …and anyone who feels the need to be sexually stimulated, during every waking second, clearly has some serious issues)

…but no facts or evidence, that shows antifa protests to be notably more violent, than any other large demonstration.
All large protests tend to involve some violence. (even aside from that started by counter-protestors or police, or [less commonly, but not entirely rarely] by people who infiltrate it, to make them look bad)

It's exacltly how it works.

Those people who would say that, are despicable hypocrites.
Granted, if the cake says "kill all Jews", you could decline it, on the grounds that such a statement is incitement to murder, but aside from that…

At no point, and in no way, have I done so.
I have merely pointed out the fact, that if you look at the definition and fundamental meaning of right wing, it will show that authoritarianism is clearly and inherently right wing.

My comment contained no definition.

You mean "without even bothering to make the slightest attempt to convince you otherwise"?

No.
It is impossible, because there are none.

At no point, have I defined a powerful and controlling government, as right-wing.
If you have a powerful and controlling government, which is properly democratic, and hence carry out the will of the people…
That isn't inherently right-wing, at all. (I dunno that I'd say it's inherently anti-right, either)
A powerful and controlling government, controlled by a dictator or unaccountable elites/oligarchs, however…
That is right-wing.

Aside from how you are ignoring the chilling effect, of how many don't speak up out of fear, non-punishment forms of negative consequences from not reciting the pledge (such as being shunned/ostracized), the fact that you still have to endure the pledge-reciting (whether you participate or not), and other issues…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/201 0/02/23/AR2010022303889.html
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/10-year-old-wont-pledge-a_ n_355709 (the mere fact that this got massive media attention, should say a lot about how you'll be treated, if you refuse to say the pledge)
http://www.vaxchoicevt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/vtw oman-freespeech.pdf
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/06/i-cant-believe-the y-still-make-students-recite-the-pledge-of-allegiance

Outside of schools:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/10/07/130401 631/lawyer-jailed-for-not-saying-pledge-of-allegiance

Oh, and while I'm citing links about the Pledge of Allegiance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2BfqDUPL1I

LMAO!
That is the single most absurd thing you have said!
The US is infamous for being about as ludicrously zealously nationalistic, as you could possibly be.

You chose to use it, even though you know full well, that the term (used in that way) is a dishonest lie.

Teaching actual history, without sugercoating it or denying the bad things that the US has done, is unhealthy? Saying that racism is bad, is unhealthy?
…
Well, that says a LOT about you.

…and the, so-called, "CRT" that people are complaining about, is all about treating others as individuals, rather than as a member of a certain race.
(but being aware of the issues that they face, due to being a member of the race/ethnicity/whatever that they are. Being blind to those, not taking those into account and wilfully not caring to show any sensitivity towards them… that is racist. Being "colour-blind", is not an ideal)

Anyone who would be, is a fool
…but how is this relevant to the topic at hand?

True, but WTF does that have to do with this topic?

…
WTF are you talking about?

You "personally believe" that …based on absolutely NOTHING.
Because it would be nice and convenient for you, to be persecuted.
I don't get your victim mentality.

You mean the stuff that the so-called "CRT", DEBUNKS?
How is that stuff, that "is being taught"?
Note how what is written in the text you linked to, is mentioned as being false, and racist, assumptions. Not facts.

Of course it does.

Your point being…?
Proper history education, involves giving a proper overview, telling the important bits, and not leaving out anything important. Giving a proper impression of the groups, people, societies, cultures, and institutions, that are mentioned.
Leaving out atrocities, would give a deeply flawed and misleading impression.
One should be extra vigilant against any attempt or temptation to skewing things, especially in favour of oneself or ones country, or towards the target audience or their country.

No one is completely free of bias, sure …but education, and science (and remember: history is a field of science) must always aim to be as free from bias as one can manage to be. (with everyone involved being as aware of their own biases as possible, and trying to avoid them, as well as having various methods, checks and regulations, that aims to avoid, spot, correct, and control for biases)

Of course all of this is only in terms of history education, where one must summarize.
Hence not relevant to your claim that "Actual history" doesn't exist …and even if we cannot 100% know or express "actual history", that wouldn't make it non-existent. Well, one may not be able to get 100% reliable and unbiased history (but being unattainable, is NOT the same as not existing!), but…
That is an unreasonable demand/requirement/definition, which renders the term utterly useless.

History that is as factual, objective, unbiased, and unskewed as you can make it, is valuable and most certainly legitimate!
It is, furthermore, COMPLETELY different to "history" (propaganda) that is intentionally made (manufactured) to make some look better. Which intentionally hides some parts, overemphasises other, and mentions myths and falsehoods, as if they were fact.

Not exactly.
You had slavery, right from the start, but I don't think it was quite so foundational, at the very start, in the North American continent.
It soon became so, however. Well before the founding of the US, certainly …and it didn't end, with the end of the civil war, or the Emancipation Declaration. (Note that the latter only freed slaves in the South. Not the ones in the North. Also, they didn't control the South, at the time, so it didn't actually do anything, at the time)

Not to mention indentured servants, mostly white, who weren't exactly slaves, but…

It should also be noted that, whilst pretty much all slaves in America were black, slavery outside of the US was never exclusively black. Though I imagine that enslaving people outside of ones own nation/culture/ethnicity was always favoured, among slavers.

The North had plenty of slaves, and didn't really have any plans to abolish it.
Also, the South never, ever, depended on it.
No place ever has.
The work that slaves were doing, could just as easily have been done by paid (and humanely treated) labour. There was nothing that was provided by slavery, that the South couldn't get without it.
The rich slave owners resented the idea of losing all that power, money, and income …as well as resenting the notion of being considered equal to black people.
The common folk…
They had to compete against farms that had the unfair advantage, of tons of free labour. The only reason they had, to defend slavery, was that the perceived need to see black people as inferior, so as to feel better about themselves. Needing to make themselves feel better, by putting others down (and hence "prove" that they are better) …instead of trying to actually improve themselves, or their condition.

"When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

Given that he led armies in battle against the United States of America…
(when talking about "the North" vs "the South", or "the Union" vs "the Confederacy", it should be noted that "the Union" was what the United States of America was commonly called, back then. Any instance of "Union", should be replaced by "US"/"USA" or the non-abbreviated forms thereof. "The North" was the United States of America)

It is firmly well established, that Robert E. Lee was firmly pro-slavery, never spoke out against slavery, said that slavery was necessary (a "necessary evil", sure, but one that would remain necessary for the foreseeable future. He also said it was more beneficial to the enslaved black people, than the white slave owners)
…and, of course, made sure that a bunch of slaves that were to be freed, according to the will and testament of their recently deceased owner, remained slaves. (note: his slaves)

Robert E. Lee did NOT fight to defend his homeland.
The US didn't attack his homeland.
They attacked the Confederacy.
They did not attack either the land, nor the civilians, of the Confederacy.
They fought to remove the government of the Confederacy, and reverse the illegal attempt at secession. (not a comment on whether secession should be illegal, just noting that it was …and still is)
The US forces posed no threat to his homeland.
Only to their "right" to keep black people as slaves
…which, as the founders of the Confederacy clearly stated, repeatedly, was the one and only reason that they seceded. The one and only reason they created the Confederacy, and what the Confederacy was based on.
Robert E. Lee, as well as the Confederacy, fought to keep the institution of slavery. Nothing else.

This is pure, well established, historical fact, and not up for debate.

Ah, so admit to knowing that what you said was false?
In other words:
You lied?

First you say "it's terrible that they say 'that isn't CRT', rather than deal with what they are complaining about" …and now you say "I find it terrible that they say 'that isn't CRT', and then go on to deal with what they are complaining about"?
…
Your switch from one, to the other, is very telling…
It is a clear admission that you are being purely dishonest, as you're completely changing your story as well as moving the goalposts.

None of it is slanted or simplistic.
And you know it isn't.
…
How about you stop using cowardly and dishonest lies and tactics?
…
I'll tell you, what I told Peep:
How about you get a dose of integrity and/or self-respect, and start being honest?
If not, if you just continue to be more and more dishonest (you started out being at least partially honest, but…), then I see no point in wasting any more time on you.

You perfectly describe yourself, and your ilk.
Projection at it's finest!

@blackkittycat15
👍

4x, 2x, 3x, lonely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7HO62Hmkg4

I would suggest letting the topic die and stop debating the guy. I have a grandmother who repeats the exact same political points and circular discussions that go nowhere, and she remains absolutely flabbergasted that I would ever want more out of life than working for a paycheck 'till I'm 70 years old.

________________

They are Antifa, therefore everything they do is antifascist, because they are called Antifa. They cannot be wrong. There is nothing to discuss. All of their policy ideas are valid and necessary to oppose fascism, because they are called Antifa. Everything they do is justified so long as they are named Antifa. So long as they do not commit more than the statistically average amount of violence for a protest, there is nothing to critique about their methods. Violence comes with the protest package. It's just part of life. Those counter-protestors though, they have no excuse.



The Supreme Court says otherwise, but I guess a random person on the internet knows more than them.



If I understand you correctly, the definition of a left-wing government is a government that the people agree with, and the definition of a right-wing government is a government that the people oppose. In other words, you have literally defined left vs. right as good vs. bad. So by that definition, a government that bans gay marriage, that has no social programs, and has a state religion is left wing so long as the people voted it that way. Conversely, if the people opposed gay marriage but a dictator legalized gay marriage by fiat, they would be right-wing. But I'm sure you'd add a whole bunch of other rules that would contradict this, because you provided no definition. You define specific goals your opponents have to meet (regardless of if it was even what they are saying), while making unproven, sweeping statements like "People who oppose what they call "CRT" are opposed to teaching children actual history."



The chilling effect of being shunned/ostracized? If only there were some kind of phrase for a culture that is quick to ostracize others for perceived moral slights. Nah, that doesn't exist. In any case, people broke the law. The kid in Maryland got multiple articles written *because* it was blatantly wrong. It's slam-dunk views for a reporter because it is so obviously wrong and gets clicks. If it were happening all the time it wouldn't be newsworthy. And did you just slip in a link to "Vax choice" complaining about vaccines?



Me: Here's a link from noted left wing site Vox with actual statistics.
Statistics! Ha! I don't need statistics when I know I'm right! Now, back to me complaining about how my opponents don't use logic.



I'm more than happy to say I oppose "anti-racism" (note the quotes, because the name is not what it is). But CRT is the buzzword, and thus the conversation follows the buzzword. I agree CRT is not the best name. But here's the funny thing. Both sides are playing the branding game. The left says, "CRT is a scapegoat because they don't want to say what they're really against!" And this is true, but not in the way they imply. The left calls their beliefs "Anti-racism" because the name sounds positive. Much like "Antifa," if anyone says they oppose Anti-racism, they must be racist because Anti-racism is no more and no less than opposing racism because it says so right in the name. And as evidenced above, this incredibly stupid line of reasoning apparently works. The left says, "We're just teaching actual history!" because they don't want to say what they're actually for. It implies there is only one true account of history, and it's their account of history.

Meanwhile, they do stupid things like say that individualism and proper writing skills are "white supremacy." Or reducing/removing standardized testing. They argue we should get rid of AP classes or that we need to talk about racism in math class.

What is actually happening and whether it's good or bad is not the focus. It's all just vapid posturing to appear good and smart. And by the way, the argument isn't that 2nd-graders are being taught some obscure legal theory. The idea is that is that teachers are being taught to base their teaching on ideas and assumptions shared by CRT. While I still dislike the name, CRT is hardly unrelated to what is happening here, even if the name is a stretch.

(P.S. Yes I know I'm never going to "win" the argument, but I enjoy pointing out bad logic.)