tuvarkz

With a sledgehammer and a pickaxe, instead of a jackhammer or something that would have allowed for a more clean removal, and without permission, thus committing a crime? Sounds like vandalizing to me with a poor excuse, the excuse being politically motivated to boot. His inefficacy makes him little better than the people thinking they are in the right about stealing Trump signs or vandalizing them.

Religion has had its value and uses throughout human history, as has been brought up above. However, I find that it is becoming little more than a crutch that humanity will hopefully be ready to abandon in the future.

Except that the KKK and WBC have been mostly harmless of recent and are very small groups currently (In the meantime, fundamentalist Muslims aren't, even if they won't resort to violent methods). And they are US citizens-there's a very significant gap between 'not granting access to a foreign person to the country' and 'exiling a US citizen'. Also, apparently more stuff keeps coming from the Clinton campaign-seems like plenty of protests were actually instigated and not spontaneous.

@Tryhard: As I brought up pages ago when talking about what I saw the alt-right as, I did bring up that there were genuine white nationalists/white supremacists amongst the alt-right, and so are some fascists. (Although regarding anti-semitism, it's gotten a bit confusing about whether this is a meme everyone just keeps using given that it was a thing even back when /pol/ was left leaning when it was contrarian to be leftist or whether there's actual anti-semites in the mix) @Lord Raven: Except that the BLM has manifesto, official founding, and each chapter has a rough organizational system. The same could be roughly said about most forms of organized religions. The alt-right has neither of these, it isn't even exactly clear who ascribed the name to the group. Sure, there are group actions as you brought up with the polls, but those things are more of a spur-of-the-moment things (given that the medium of action is the internet). My own description of what I see the alt-right as is just as biased as it is from my point of view (given a complete lack of proper ideology) (Also @eggclipse, I did bring up feminism here instead of on the appropriate topic because it is tied to the current 'progressive' movement rather than to start a focused discussion on it). I do abscribe the same thing to religion because religion is fundamentally also an ideology. Regarding scientology and islam, I'm being intentionally vague because there are more secular members of islam that are far from having an ideology that is incompatible with the west. One of the reasons why I judge the entirety of the movement of a whole for the actions of some chapters is that I don't see the rest of the chapters actively condemning the violence and looting occurred in some of the protests and riots caused by the other chapters. Decentralized they may be, but they share a single name and have a single founding. (And there are even some who are actually defending the looting it seems)(Doesn't help either when one of the co-founders brings up Assata Shakur, a wanted criminal when talking about the founding of BLM) Yet the worst the alt-right has done is to hurt some feelings online and as you brought up, change some polls. And even some of the major figures in the Alt-Right, like Milo, have a strong group of detractors present.

-Regarding equality matters-I'll concede that a significant amount of the alt-right holds such views, yet it is individual groups more than a single group that hates everything not white christian cis-male (and then the left seems to conveniently forget that equality means both sides' disadvantages need to be fixed and not just helping the 'oppressed groups'), particularly regarding the fact that the left has gone a bit too far when it comes to their so-yet-called 'equality'. Also, religion doesn't fit in there, it's not a natural-born category that cannot be changed but an ideology that one chooses to ascribe to. The fact that I do not like communists is because I think their ideology is a proven repeated failure that will never win against human nature (and a load of other arguments) and it does not make me bigoted, the fact that I do not like scientologists because their beliefs are outright lies that seem to have been invented for purely making money. The same can be applied to any other ideology or religion. (And I remember still some BLM chants back during some protests) -Regarding freedom of speech, oh please. What are you going to accuse the alt-right of, of dogpiling and bullying those that disagree? This is more an inherent thing associated to how open communication in the internet goes, rather than a factional thing; given it goes both ways. Which does remind me that when someone is targetted by the left, it often ends with very real world consequences-See Tim Hunt for the biggest example of this happening. -Conspiracy: Yes there are people that believe the whole conspiracy thing, yet the feminists keep being so obsessed with their so-called 'patriarchy', 'systemic racism', and 'rape culture' in the first world, when their own 'evidence' (given how a lot of it seems to be data misinterpretation or outright malicious misuse) isn't any better. -Almost-religious worship for an authoritarian figure: Are you serious? Trump's statement on bathrooms caused a massive blowup within the alt-right, and a large majority still does not agree with Trump on that aspect. What are Trump's policies, oh a reduction of taxes and regulations? Yes, totally authoritarian. You can call him a masculine or alpha figure that is easy to follow, but hardly authoritarian. You want to bring up the Trump Emperor memes? Please, every single Imperium player in the 40k fanbase that doesn't have a stick so far up his ass knows that the Emperor himself is just as flawed as any other human and those flaws are part of what caused the Horus Heresy in the first place. Yet you cannot dispute some of feminism's latest beliefs or actions or BLM or whatever other similar group without immediately being labeled sexist/racist/etc and if someone goes beyond any possible defense 'not a real feminist/muslim/etc'. You say 'nearly impossible for a candidate to openly speak up against'. Yet one of Trump's early messages was that the US could no longer permit itself to be the world's police, and his advocacy for other countries to have nuclear weapons and for a better relationship with Russia mean that the 'only superpower' theory is something that Trump does not stand for. And then, globalists do advocate for a single world government or something strongly approaching one. Honestly, I could just as easily say that the radical 'progressives' are just or even more of an ideological equivalent to radical islamists than the alt-right is or ever will be. Honestly, I could just as easily say that the radical 'progressives' are just or even more of an ideological equivalent to radical islamists.

Oh, please, an ideological equivalence to radical islamists is taking it too far. The amount of people that are seriously interested in a "Western Civilization Global Empire" is negligible at best, to begin with, given that almost all supporters, particularly those that are not US citizens, think each country is better off on its own sovereignity.

Honestly, main reason why I generally bring up the '1 in 4' and the 'wage gap' because 1)They have been given credibility and truth value by mainstream media (and the US government as well given that Obama has brought it up, don't remember if Clinton did but Sanders has brought the wage up iirc), 2) they are the ones that least intersect into other topics ('Safe spaces' is quite much an intersectional thing now, and talking Internet harassment and related is inevitably going to tie the whole thing with the Gamergate movement which is likely to derail the conversation) which is why I bring them up when talking specifically about feminism rather than bringing up the issues I have with 'progressives' as a whole.

I haven't seen any gender-related discrimination in tabletop gaming (even if some of them did have elitists and hardcore optimizers). Also, a 3.5e wizard? He's strong from level one-With his 3-4 daily spells at level one, with proper use he'll single-handedly half of the allotted daily encounters, since Colorspray basically just leaves the enemies in place for whatever weapon-wielder is in the party to just attack them till they drop. I enjoy much more playing my Tome of Battle martials (and PF 3rd party equivalents) though.

The issue is that these kind of feminists are going mainstream. Sarkeesian and Quinn got invited to speak at the UN, Obama has brought up the 'wage gap' and the '1 in 4' (He called it as twenty percent but the issue remains the same), the 'guilty unless proven otherwise' in multiple college rape investigations. The issue is not that they are being the most vocal, but that they are actually being listened to by people with influence.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/retired-generals-admirals-endorse-trump-227755 He's likely counting in retired admirals/generals to add up to over 200.

Except that intent should not really decide whether there should be prosecution or not. If you accidentally grievously injure someone or even kill a person, just because there was no intent of doing so doesn't mean you get off the punishment for committing a crime.

These two are not like each other. Islam, as a belief system, is inherently ideological and it is up to a person's choice to stick to the ideology and its members or to separate from it. Racism is not inherent to white people nor only white people can be racist, and one cannot change one's ethnicity.

Yes, countries that aren't taking in refugees aren't necessarily doing so to spend money on helping their poor. That is not my point, but that countries that ARE taking refugees aren't doing the other thing first and foremost. I said only when the country doesn't stand to gain from it. Whether it be from a treaty of mutual aid of sorts signed before or because there are people with valuable skills (scientists or such) that can be of worth to a country that takes them in, or any other way where an advantage can be obtained, there can be reasons for taking refugees. Or, of course, if the whole thing balances out in net cost-benefit. And regarding societies without poverty, the incas actually got pretty close to achieving such a thing. While I see it as something that would require extraordinary amounts of coordinated effort, I don't think it's unrealistic to believe that such a society can be achieved.

Well, you can call it functionally welfare, but without the (as you called it) 'lazy moochers' aspect.

I was more thinking of give them cheap housing (build some minimalist looking stuff) and/or meals, and either help them find a minimal-skill job or create some for them to do (Maybe help clean up in the streets or something, varying depending on the place). Once they find a job, part of that income goes to paying for said housing/meals until they can save enough/manage to find something better.

@UNLEASH IT: Yeah, totally not a Clinton shilling message. Doesn't come as unexpected though. Honestly, regarding refugees: As long as a country has citizens that are in poverty due to no fault of their own and have almost no way out by themselves, I don't think it's acceptable for a government to offer aid to people from other countries, or at least if the country doesn't stand to gain from it. A country has to fix its own problems before taking care of whatever is happening in other places. (And yes, even if it's likely that they (in)directly caused the whole problem in the first place).

To note, it's also brought up in the New Testament that intent matters a lot more than following the commands by the letter.

'Cuckservative' didn't come from being hestitant on Trump support. The term comes from the fact that the perception that conservatives had basically ended up relegated to just trying to slow down the leftwards shift in politics, instead of actively pushing for a return to traditional values, as well as for playing by the PC handbook when it's a belief of the alt-right that no metaphorical inch of gain should ever be ceded to the left, PC wording included. The word was already in use when there was still a slim chance Trump could lose/get screwed by the system. While the alt-right does not advocate for trans people and does largely consider them as mentally ill (or 'degenerate', which is a generic insult thrown around everywhere tbh), subhumanism has been never specifically brought in. And just being vitriolic, backwards, and uncompromising is too wide of a descriptor. By those three you might as well lump in ideological supporters of radical islam.

Regarding feeling less supported though, it's important to bring up that social conditioning generally makes it so that women are generally more supported than men, which means that if professors at college pay equal attention, it's perfectly possible that women might feel less-payed-attention-to in comparison. And to be honest, STEM relies quite significantly on the capability to self-motivate IMO, a lot of the biggest discoveries/inventions have come up when the general thought of such things possibilities was considered impossible or outright idiotic.

Individual choice and preferences? Nothing is barring access to women from doing any of these choices. As Balcerzak brings up, there is some degree of social conditioning to it, but at the end of the day those are choices made entirely by their own free will.

The 'wage gap' is rather an earnings gap, and is mostly debunked through choice. From career choices to work hours, including overtime (which not only affects extra pay for the overtime but also likely to influence opinion on who gets promoted faster) largely reduce most of the alleged gap, and in young people, said gap is almost nonexistent. The last remaining percentages are easily explained by the fact that men are more prone to negotiate their salary. (Which, however, does very likely come from sex-based social conditioning) And by reductio ad absurdum, assuming you could get away with paying women less, all companies would heavily favor hiring women to cut costs.

Honestly, I see no point in having a 'third wave' feminism in the first world anymore. Half of the stuff that is spouted out (Mainly the 1 in 4 (regarding sexual assaults in college) and the 77 cents to a dollar (the so called 'wage gap'), and the so alleged 'rape culture' without the which the whole movement as is would crumble down) is outright fake and taken from intentional misreading of the available information. There is a modicum of social barriers and minor stuff, but at the same time women enjoy benefits that men do not (such as lesser jail time for the same crimes). The concept of equality between sexes is right (Except when it comes to the peak of physical potential), but as a movement, feminism should stop miring its sights at the first world and nitpicking (when they get very minor things right), and instead look in other places in the world where women are actually disadvantaged.

1) Except that there's been right-wingers who have gotten death threats too, Geert Wilders being one of them. And some of the more notable feminists who got up death threats did so after posting massive baits (Like the Gamers are Dead articles) and later stood to gain massive amounts of media attention/donations as a result from them (and the large majority of anti-third-wave-feminism was against death threats, it was just giving them more money; and this doesn't take into account third-party trolls that were actively disrupting both sides). Also, Merkel's immigration/refugee policy was totally left wing. 2) I know of leftists that are against said issues, which is why my argument wasn't against "the left" as a whole, but against PC culture. I'll aknowledge 3 and 4. But yeah, personally my reaction to the whole 'basket of deplorables' thing was 'so this is Clinton's latest mis-step, huh-alright, time to get back to (other stuff I was doing while browsing the internet)'.

I recall that being mostly the traditional right getting salty for it. The alt-right places I frequent laughed it off or just objectively assumed it was a stupid move on Hillary's part. And there is a difference between a verbal insult and people being a risk/getting attacked or worse.

The intent of my beliefs is to minimize the loss of life. As there are no artificial wombs, then there is no other way to keep the new life alive, and I don't think it is fair to kill a human due regardless of how much of a monster the father might have been. And then, there's always the morning after pill, which will likely stop the conception itself, which means no life is lost. While a morning after pill can prevent an already fertilized egg from attaching, I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt in favor of using the pill rather than banning the pill.