The BlueSwan Basement of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VIII

[John Dule]

Mass genocide of rural/suburban whites in California, Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts. Ridiculous even to imagine, though-- this won't happen until 2022, maybe even 2024 at the latest.

Well, we now have white genocide truthers on here.

Any bets as to how many days it takes for this to become a mainstream position on the Atlas Right? I'm going to put my first guess at five.

Ok, that was pretty obviously a jab at how far left California is, and not meant to be taken at all seriously.

[John Dule]

Thread: 11 year old rape victim forced to carry to term thanks to Ohio law.

Or: innocent child allowed to live their life thanks to Ohio law.

That's a good post.  The solution to rape cannot be murdering an innocent third party.

Well, you're ideologically consistent, at the very least.

[John Dule]

From a strict constitutionalist standpoint, a fetus has by definition not been "born in the United States," and therefore isn't entitled to the rights of an American citizen.

[John Dule]

From a strict constitutionalist standpoint, a fetus has by definition not been "born in the United States," and therefore isn't entitled to the rights of an American citizen.

They are persons under U.S. jurisdiction.   Most of the rights mentioned in the Constitution are not limited to citizens.

Right, but if it comes to the point of saving the life of a US citizen or a non-citizen, the former should be given priority, no?

[John Dule]

I just don't know honestly, might just have abstained... Corbyn and Tony Benn, Attlee and MacDonald are the only ones i would have turned out enthusiastically for. I just see no reason to vote for centrist Labourites like Blair and Brown who did anything but help the working class (and in case of Blair even made war crimes), like what's the difference between Blair and Cameron or Blair and Reagan. I honestly don't know.

And centrists sometimes aren't better than right-wing candidates... See Macron. I honestly think Marine Le Pen would be better for the working class in France. I might've supported Macron once, but now i'm leaning towards Le Pen if the second round is repeated. We already know what we get if we vote for centrists and it's horrible, why not give the right a chance. At least economically they're better candidates, and all i care about is working class interests economically and the environment (and maybe some social policies).

I know more from US politics than UK politics although, that might explain the weird voting pattern. I don't know Milliband and a lot of the other past Labour candidates i voted for.

I agreed with this up until he mentioned Le Pen. fascists must be stopped at all costs, even if it means voting for a neoliberal centrist over them.

Le Pen isn't fascist? (i mean Marine).

Semantics. she's a far-right reactionary.

All politics is reactionary. This isn't just "semantics;" fascism does not apply at all to Marine Le Pen.

[John Dule]

I just don't know honestly, might just have abstained... Corbyn and Tony Benn, Attlee and MacDonald are the only ones i would have turned out enthusiastically for. I just see no reason to vote for centrist Labourites like Blair and Brown who did anything but help the working class (and in case of Blair even made war crimes), like what's the difference between Blair and Cameron or Blair and Reagan. I honestly don't know.

And centrists sometimes aren't better than right-wing candidates... See Macron. I honestly think Marine Le Pen would be better for the working class in France. I might've supported Macron once, but now i'm leaning towards Le Pen if the second round is repeated. We already know what we get if we vote for centrists and it's horrible, why not give the right a chance. At least economically they're better candidates, and all i care about is working class interests economically and the environment (and maybe some social policies).

I know more from US politics than UK politics although, that might explain the weird voting pattern. I don't know Milliband and a lot of the other past Labour candidates i voted for.

I agreed with this up until he mentioned Le Pen. fascists must be stopped at all costs, even if it means voting for a neoliberal centrist over them.

Le Pen isn't fascist? (i mean Marine).

Semantics. she's a far-right reactionary.

All politics is reactionary. This isn't just "semantics;" fascism does not apply at all to Marine Le Pen.

Well she's far-right and definitely not of the "abolish all taxes and turn this country into Somalia" variety...

Thanks for posting this comment in this thread; you saved me the energy of having to post it here myself.

[John Dule]

But most importantly, IQ is by no means scientific and actually is kinda racist if you ask most contemporary psychologists.

Lol, it's not scientific.  Intelligence is not a linear concept, much as the pseudointellectual right (and racists) would like you to believe.

You may have a little point, but there is no way theoretically or literally that an IQ test could be racist.

Sure, IQ tests aren't inherently racist.  Neither is the SAT, which was invented by a known eugenicist and instrumental in promoting federal anti-immigration legislation in the 1920's.

"This thing, which is not racist, is tangentially similar to this unrelated thing, which is racist. Therefore, both are racist."

[John Dule]

Propaganda. Disgusting. I hope the FCC shuts them down.

If a liberal station aired Obama speeches all day long would you say the same? I think not. Most of the media leans heavily left, this is a reaction to that.

There's a difference between Obama and Trump lol. Obama is a fundamentally more compassionate individual and a better speaker with less fascist policies.

[John Dule]

Democracy and capitalism are headed for a divorce, and capitalism will be the winner. It deserves the win, too. Democratic ideals are founded on a false idea of equality that has no basis in reality. Any boob can see that differences between individuals are vast and contribute massively to a person's success (or lack thereof). The lie of equality is perpetuated only so that weak-willed people can feel that their own failures were not within their control. I'm not talking about the poor black kid in Compton who never had a lick of economic opportunity in his life here-- I'm talking about people like the ones I went to high school with. You know, entitled, spoiled bratty white kids with helicopter parents who bought them a Lexus for their fifteenth birthday, and who (despite having every possible advantage in life) burned their brains out with weed and ended up moving back in with mommy and daddy after college. They love the idea of everybody getting an equal share because they know they're not bringing anything to the potluck. Tell me that these people deserve a "Freedom Dividend" or even a vote, I dare you.

Voting is ridiculous. American democracy asserts that the subjective, ill-informed, bullsh**t opinion of some uneducated (sorry, "low-information") voter in Frog Balls, Arkansas is worth as much as the input of well-educated, civic-minded people like the ones on this forum. It's just absurd. Majority rule is a wretched, utilitarian way of governing a nation and it deserves to be cast into the dustbin of history. If 51 or 66 or 72 or 99 percent of the public shares the same opinion, that should not affect me one iota if I think they're wrong. They have no right to affect my life through the voting process just because we've all arbitrarily decided that "everybody's vote counts."

I have my own problems with capitalism, but at least it's meritocratic.

You want to discuss my thoughts, or just sneakily make cowardly posts on other threads like this?

[John Dule]

You know, it's funny. I used to think like you. I was a naive white suburban pre-teen who thought we had solved racism and that people discussing racism were just being oversensitive. After all, we had a black President! We did away with legal segregation and Jim Crow decades ago! I hadn't experienced the cruel lash of racism myself, so I assumed it wasn't an issue for anybody in this day and age.

Then I matured a little bit. I got into high school and started to develop more of an interest in politics and the world around me. I befriended more people with backgrounds, races, ethnicities, appearances, cultures, and stories different than my own. I started to read more and pay attention to the news. And I started to realize that my thoughts on racism were foolish and underdeveloped. I didn't think racism was still a problem in this country because I was fortunate enough not to have experienced it personally.

My ignorance was regrettable, but in my own defense, I had yet to be truly exposed to other perspectives. You, on the other hand, have almost certainly been confronted with piles of evidence in your time trolling political communities like this one. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt one more time. Let's review some of the most poignant realities. Let's review racism in this country today.

You talk about race being a distraction from bread and butter issues. People trying to put food on their table. So let's start there. Food insecurity disproportionately impacts racial minorities. While only 9% of white households in the US struggle with food insecurity, it’s a problem for 22% of black households and 18% of Hispanic households. In fact, according to Drexel’s Dr. Mariana Chilton, “you cannot take on poverty and hunger without taking on historical and contemporary discrimination.”

Let’s talk about poverty. According to the Census Bureau, for every $100 earned by white families in the US, black families earn an average of $57.30. That’s just income. In terms of actual wealth, for every $100 held by white families, black families hold $5.04. While only 10.1% of non-Hispanic whites live in poverty, 23.6% of Hispanic Americans do, alongside 26.2% of Black Americans and a shocking 28.3% of Native Americans.

How about jobs? According to Pew, for six or seven straight decades, the black unemployment rate has consistently been twice as high as the white unemployment rate. This affects black college graduates as well. Back in 2014, the unemployment rate for black college graduates was 12.4%. Overall, the unemployment rate for college graduates was 5.6%. Even higher education can’t outpace the scourge of racism. That’s not even getting into the well-attributed phenomenon of people with white sounding names receiving as high as 50% more callbacks for employment than those with stereotypically black names.

Let’s get back to education for a second. Black children are put to a disadvantage as early as preschool, where they make up half of all suspensions per the Department of Education. Across the nation, minority children make up disproportionate percentages of schools that underachieve, largely due to poor funding. According to a paper from the Civil Rights Project, schools with high proportions of minority enrollment are often characterized by "less experienced and less qualified teachers, high levels of teacher turnover, less successful peer groups and inadequate facilities and learning materials." And their problems don’t end in high school. According to the Hechinger Report, 42% of college age white Americans are actually enrolled in college, while only 34% of black and Hispanic Americans the same age are. These students are less likely to go to selective institutions and are less likely to graduate.

Black people make up around 40% of the prison population despite making up 13% of the total population of the country. This is due entirely to institutional racism, sentencing disparities, and racial profiling. Black drivers are 30% more likely to be pulled over by the police and black convicts are 20% more likely to be sentenced to jail time for the same crime (oh, and by the way, their sentences are 20% longer as well.)

Only 42% of black Americans own homes, as compared to 72% of white Americans.

When an implicit bias survey was conducted in 2012, 56% of Americans expressed anti-black attitudes. 57% of Americans expressed anti-Hispanic attitudes.

76% of black and Asian Americans, alongside 58% of Hispanics, said that they had experienced discrimination or unfair treatment at some point in their lives, something that can affect one’s psyche for years.

Let’s not forget about the President of the United States denigrating members of Congress, telling them to go back to their countries and implying their citizenship wasn’t equal to a native-born white American’s. Do you think that promotes a good image of American values in the mind’s eye of children of color?

I could go on for pages and pages, but since I assume you gave up reading a while back, I’ll wrap up with an anecdote. The other day, I attended a roundtable talk put on by some friends of mine. It was intended to discuss race, culture, and disparities here in my home county. Not that someone like you would see the value in this, but I found the perspectives of those who had differences than my own illuminating. Racial disparities exist everywhere, and if you’re not aware of that, you need to look harder. A Latino guy made the salient point that something as simple as trash collection was done with much more care in the whiter portion of my county where he used to live than the less white portion of the county where he lives now. Several Muslim students brought up the difficulties they had experienced attempting to practice their faith in school.

I find it quite telling that you don’t find racism to be a big problem in the US, Grasr00ts. It goes to show that you’re lucky. You’re living in a fantasy land where you haven’t been the victim of these vicious behaviors and, since you’re the kind of person who’s seemingly incapable of understanding other people’s perspectives, you assume that all of this bigotry has vanished. It hasn’t and it’s stunningly naive for you to assume that is has. I encourage you to try and learn from people who don’t think like you and don’t have the same background as you in the future. Like I said, I was once like you. I hadn’t experienced all of this crap so I assumed there was no way it could exist. I was wrong then, and you’re wrong now. Grow up, open your eyes, and listen to others. It might just serve you well.

So, I'm not going to disagree with your excellent points here, or your statistics (which are obviously correct). I'm just curious to hear your perspective on how you attribute the cause of these inequalities. After all, the low median household wealth of black families has its roots in events that happened centuries ago; former slaves didn't have any savings to hand down to their descendants, and so these inequalities reverberated through every successive generation. I personally would say that the modern disparity between black and white wealth has less to do with modern-day racism than it does with simple structural inequalities that, although now gone, still affect the African-American community today. Some evidence: Studies have shown that modern Nigerian immigrants to America (who are just as black as any other African-American) actually earn more on average than native-born white families, which would suggest that appearance-based racial discrimination is not the root cause of the statistical inequalities to which you refer. So I'd actually say that citing modern examples of racial inequity isn't enough of a foundation for the claim that racism today is the number one cause of those issues, which is the point that Grassr00ts was arguing against, if I'm not mistaken. None of this is to say that racism doesn't exist in the US; it obviously does, but I still think that the shadow of slavery and Jim Crow is the real culprit behind the statistics you've cited, and things like workplace discrimination in 2019 are a distant second.

[John Dule]

Disappoints. I'll try to respond.

First, to nitpick, some biggest inequities in wealth between blacks and whites today have to do with the post- World War II era rather than the post-civil War era. Both have their effect, but the greatest growth in wealth among Caucasian Americans since World War II has been the growth of Suburbia and the explosion of home ownership. Most Americans went to being home owners Rabil Dean equity and dust had wealth that, relative to Prior decades, exploded to the point that we have, or had, such an economically stable middle-class for decades. However, due to government redlining programs which were explicitly racist in their application, African Americans were largely cut out of that influx of post-war wealth growth. Although he oversimplifies things, there's a good Adam ruins everything bit on the subject. Check it out. It's one of his better ones.

The difference between Nigerian immigrants and many white Americans in terms of economic advancement mostly comes from the background of the immigrants. Other examples would be the first wave of Cuban, Vietnamese, and Korean immigrants, followed by many Indian immigrants. Immigrant groups were far better off economically then most of the immigrants that came through Ellis Island in the light in a previous decades. For that matter they are substantially better off than many modern-day immigrants. For example, while many conservatives liked to point to the industrious and low Reliance on public Services among modern Asian immigrants as proof that all we needed was a good bit of stick-to-itiveness and not government handouts, etc etc. However, slightly later immigrants from Cambodia, Laos, and other parts of Southeast Asia, including the Hammam, emigrated with far less familial and financial support then the Vietnamese first wave, and unsurprisingly there participation in Reliance of public services and violent gangs is as bad as many Central American refugees.

 I don't see can't remember what my point was there, but interesting, eh? Oh yes, point being that starting off a few rungs up on the ladder obviously has its advantages, but it doesn't necessarily negate the fact that racial discrimination is active and, while hardly Universal is some red avatars claim, arguably at least still pervasive.

I'm not sure how much I'd minimize discrimination here in 2019. Every couple years the Urban League does one of those studies where blacks and whites with essentially identical educational and professional backgrounds are hand-picked to apply for the same positions, and invariably the white person gets callbacks and second interviews and write far far surpassing equally qualified black applicants. Ditto for resumes email to prospective employers of identically suited candidates, but one with a stereotypical African-American name who, of course, gets vastly fewer calls for an interview. Yes, the Civil War and Jim Crow eras have lasting probating influence oh, and I would say the Jim Crow era of which ended only 50 years ago officially, still have much to do with inequality among African Americans, Latinos, another racial minorities. This, incidentally, is the primary reason I opposed the concept of reparations. I see it too much as a way for white Americans to collectively wash their hands of addressing ongoing pervasive issues of ongoing modern discrimination. When anyone points out that discrimination is still alive, if you're too many people will point to the reparations checks rendering it a closed issue.

So, I'm not sure if I really addressed your points rather than just threw in some random thoughts of my own, but there you go. Food for thought.

Forgive me, but wouldn't the bolded part of your comment reinforce my claim that a person's socioeconomic background has more to do with their current poverty than outright phenotype discrimination does? The whole "model minority" thing got started because the Asian immigrants coming to this country were often upper-middle-class trained professionals, or other people with marketable skills who came for economic reasons. Anyway, I actually took a whole class on the issues you just brought up (red-line districts, the HOLC, etc), so I'm well aware of all that. I'm not saying that slavery is the end-all, be-all for the state of black America, but the lack of generational wealth being passed down has caused so many other things-- low homeownership, low educational attainment, fewer employment opportunities-- that it's hard to point to anything else as the number one problem holding African-Americans back.

My point is that if we waved a magic wand and erased racism and prejudice from America today, all the inequalities listed in this thread would still persist. Employers no longer refuse to hire black people because they're black? Great, now they won't hire them because they have lower educational attainment. Banks no longer refuse loans to black people because of their skin color? Great, now they'll refuse those same loans because the applicant doesn't have the necessary collateral. To say that these problems are holdovers from Jim Crow, slavery, and past generations isn't to say that they're going to go away on their own; far from it. In fact, I'm arguing that simply changing our attitudes about race today won't undo the cold utilitarian calculus that employers, bankers, and college admissions departments have to make, and that calculus will still discriminate against African-Americans even if it uses purely "unbiased" metrics.

[John Dule]

I propose a rename of this thread.

No. White people absolutely will re-elect this pedophile rapist because he espouses their racial resentment and legitimizes it.

Where's the lie though?

538 just released an article showing that racial resentment has actually decreased during Trump's presidency.

[John Dule]

For once, instead of something political, we're looking at some serious topographical ignorance in this post.

I like Texas in concept, but the state is basically an arid wasteland of dry scrub brush, trailer homes, and rusty chain link fences. I could never live in that flat, dust-ridden, boiling hellscape. I like mountains, trees, and large bodies of water. That makes Texas uninhabitable for me.

Plop down anywhere in West Texas on Google Maps and you're basically in Oklahoma.

[John Dule]

You can't make this s**t up

I think we have a moral imperative to topple regimes like those in Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela that stifle their citizens and actively work to prevent them from hearing the truth that is Christ.

That one went off the rails really abruptly.

[John Dule]

Confront me on the facts of my posts or admit that you have no argument. Also, I've written much more absurd things than that, but this is what you chose to post here?

[John Dule]

I have been vilely calumniated and betrayed.

Is anyone else sick of this thread? It's basically nothing more than a dumping ground for people to empty-quote posts they disagree with instead of engaging with the person directly.

[John Dule]

It's a friggin' sheep, you guys. Chill.

But something something Cheeto Hitler bad!

What part of "endangered species" don't you two geniuses understand?

Yes, let us devote our energy and outrage to the all-important issue of preserving the existence of the Central Asian mountain sheep, on which all else depends.

You are such a closed-minded fool if that is the way you think about the preservation of animals species on our planet.
They have a right to exist also. We have destroyed many habitats making it difficult for them to survive and live; yet alone just shooting them outright, like Orange Moron Jr.
There is no room for discussion with you on this entire topic (thread). Just exit and stay out.

An animal's only value is in the utility it provides to humans.

That is an objectively correct statement.

[John Dule]

It's a friggin' sheep, you guys. Chill.

But something something Cheeto Hitler bad!

What part of "endangered species" don't you two geniuses understand?

Yes, let us devote our energy and outrage to the all-important issue of preserving the existence of the Central Asian mountain sheep, on which all else depends.

You are such a closed-minded fool if that is the way you think about the preservation of animals species on our planet.
They have a right to exist also. We have destroyed many habitats making it difficult for them to survive and live; yet alone just shooting them outright, like Orange Moron Jr.
There is no room for discussion with you on this entire topic (thread). Just exit and stay out.

An animal's only value is in the utility it provides to humans.

That is an objectively correct statement.

I really hope this is either ironic or a purposeful addition to this thread.

I know you're still in college but hopefully you've taken a philosophy class or at least a critical thinking class and can discern why this statement is ridiculous.

Excuse me? Sorry, but vegetarian philosophy isn't philosophy. Please don't tell me that you are actually under the impression that there is some kind of philosophical consensus that animals have rights. Descartes is one example. There are others.

[John Dule]

An animal's only value is in the utility it provides to humans.

That is an objectively correct statement.

I really hope this is either ironic or a purposeful addition to this thread.

I know you're still in college but hopefully you've taken a philosophy class or at least a critical thinking class and can discern why this statement is ridiculous.

Excuse me? Sorry, but vegetarian philosophy isn't philosophy. Please don't tell me that you are actually under the impression that there is some kind of philosophical consensus that animals have rights. Descartes is one example. There are others.

I was addressing the claim that animals having no value (saying nothing about rights) other than their use to humans was an objective claim, which it obviously is not.

I'm not particularly interested in arguing about whether or not animals have rights (which is, of course, a separate question than their value) because it's... wait for it... a subjective claim.

And for the record nobody said anything about a philosophical consensus about animal rights. You're fighting a strawman.

"Value" is a human concept and it is subjective to each individual person. This is indisputable. It then stands to reason that "value" can only be applied to animals inasmuch as humans decide it does. If we've decided that we value Mongolian mountain sheep a certain amount, then that's how much value they have. So the value that any item (including an animal) possesses is contingent upon its utility to humans, whether that utility comes in the form of meat, hunting for sport, or cuddling with on the couch.

[John Dule]

An animal's only value is in the utility it provides to humans.

That is an objectively correct statement.

I really hope this is either ironic or a purposeful addition to this thread.

I know you're still in college but hopefully you've taken a philosophy class or at least a critical thinking class and can discern why this statement is ridiculous.

Excuse me? Sorry, but vegetarian philosophy isn't philosophy. Please don't tell me that you are actually under the impression that there is some kind of philosophical consensus that animals have rights. Descartes is one example. There are others.

I was addressing the claim that animals having no value (saying nothing about rights) other than their use to humans was an objective claim, which it obviously is not.

I'm not particularly interested in arguing about whether or not animals have rights (which is, of course, a separate question than their value) because it's... wait for it... a subjective claim.

And for the record nobody said anything about a philosophical consensus about animal rights. You're fighting a strawman.

"Value" is a human concept and it is subjective to each individual person. This is indisputable. It then stands to reason that "value" can only be applied to animals inasmuch as humans decide it does. If we've decided that we value Mongolian mountain sheep a certain amount, then that's how much value they have. So the value that any item (including an animal) possesses is contingent upon its utility to humans, whether that utility comes in the form of meat, hunting for sport, or cuddling with on the couch.

If the claim is that animals have no intrinsic value is an objective claim because value is not "objectively" defined, then, nice try, but... nah. Your argument is basically "that's just, like, my opinion, man."

By the same logic the claim "abortion is good" is an obJeCtIvE fAcT because "goodness" varies on an individual basis.

If your argument is that only humans can evaluate value and therefore only things that are valuable to humans can be valuable, then your argument is incredibly circular.

Bad analogy. This would be more akin to saying that "goodness" is a human concept and therefore abortion can only be considered to have the quality of "goodness" when viewed through a human lens. I think it's pretty apparent that in a world with no humans, the question of whether or not abortion would be "good" would be pretty moot-- not only because there would be no humans to have abortions, but also because there would be no humans to determine whether or not something has the quality of "goodness." Yes, goodness is subjective, but that's not the argument I'm making here. I'm saying that human value judgments like "good," "bad," "right," "wrong," "valuable," and "non-valuable" literally cannot exist without a human judge to make them.

[John Dule]

An animal's only value is in the utility it provides to humans.

That is an objectively correct statement.

I really hope this is either ironic or a purposeful addition to this thread.

I know you're still in college but hopefully you've taken a philosophy class or at least a critical thinking class and can discern why this statement is ridiculous.

Excuse me? Sorry, but vegetarian philosophy isn't philosophy. Please don't tell me that you are actually under the impression that there is some kind of philosophical consensus that animals have rights. Descartes is one example. There are others.

I was addressing the claim that animals having no value (saying nothing about rights) other than their use to humans was an objective claim, which it obviously is not.

I'm not particularly interested in arguing about whether or not animals have rights (which is, of course, a separate question than their value) because it's... wait for it... a subjective claim.

And for the record nobody said anything about a philosophical consensus about animal rights. You're fighting a strawman.

"Value" is a human concept and it is subjective to each individual person. This is indisputable. It then stands to reason that "value" can only be applied to animals inasmuch as humans decide it does. If we've decided that we value Mongolian mountain sheep a certain amount, then that's how much value they have. So the value that any item (including an animal) possesses is contingent upon its utility to humans, whether that utility comes in the form of meat, hunting for sport, or cuddling with on the couch.

If the claim is that animals have no intrinsic value is an objective claim because value is not "objectively" defined, then, nice try, but... nah. Your argument is basically "that's just, like, my opinion, man."

By the same logic the claim "abortion is good" is an obJeCtIvE fAcT because "goodness" varies on an individual basis.

If your argument is that only humans can evaluate value and therefore only things that are valuable to humans can be valuable, then your argument is incredibly circular.

Bad analogy. This would be more akin to saying that "goodness" is a human concept and therefore abortion can only be considered to have the quality of "goodness" when viewed through a human lens. I think it's pretty apparent that in a world with no humans, the question of whether or not abortion would be "good" would be pretty moot-- not only because there would be no humans to have abortions, but also because there would be no humans to determine whether or not something has the quality of "goodness." Yes, goodness is subjective, but that's not the argument I'm making here. I'm saying that human value judgments like "good," "bad," "right," "wrong," "valuable," and "non-valuable" literally cannot exist without a human judge to make them.

So, to be clear (yes or no answer would be fantastic) your argument about the objectivity of animals having no "value" except their value to humans depends critically on the fact that only humans are able to discern value?

No. "Discern" still implies that there is something innate and intrinsic in the object being judged, a quality which somehow only humans can perceive. That is not true.

[John Dule]

My first paragraph literally singles out people who think Bernie is a self-righteous crank who lost fair and square (i.e. Hillary hacks).  Also, I don’t single out Sanders supporters.  Plenty of Sanders supporters aren’t pointlessly obsessing over the 2016 primaries.  I have no quarrel with them.  

Anyway, the point is there are people being dumb in both camps (Berniecrats and Hacks for Hillary).  Yes, some of Sanders’ supporters sometimes do dumb things.  That’s not an attack on all Berniecrats; it’s a criticism of the ones who are doing the dumb thing in question.  Same deal with Hillary apologists.

Be more careful of what you write comrade or next time you will be labeled enemy of the people.

Sanders is not Stalin, despite what you think.

Stalin wasn't a capitalist and considering that economics is the only issue that matters for some people, I'm not sure why socialists have a problem with Stalin. Didn't the Soviet Union just do what needed to be done to achieve economic balance for the people and keep corporations out?

Why is this a bad post? There are many Bernie bros who say that economic policy is all that matters, and Stalin is still pretty popular among lefties all over the world.

It never ceases to amaze me how consistently awful you are to every single person on this site.

[John Dule]

Church is a more essential service than a grocery store. He should fight this to the death

It's more essential than a Medical Marijuana facility or an Abortion Clinic.

Republicans: "We didn't ban abortion, we just shortened the time frame during the pregnancy when you can have the procedure."

Democrats: "So if someone is 16 weeks pregnant right now, they'll be able to get an abortion, right?"

Republicans: "Well, no. We shut the only clinic in the state down due to the virus. Safety first!"

Democrats: "But the quarantine could last for months."

Republicans: "Yeah."

Democrats: "And by then that woman would be several months pregnant."

Republicans: "Yeah."

Democrats: "So would she be able to get an abortion then?"

Republicans: "No, because we banned abortions past 24 weeks."

Democrats: "So you've basically banned abortions."

Republicans: "Well, at least the churches are still open!"

[John Dule]

I'd challenge anybody to an honest intellectual debate about these things. The only responses I have gotten are people resorting to balling me a misogynist, or an incel or defending rapists. All of those claims are ridiculous. I am a lifelong feminist. I find the "incel community" abhorrent and just plain wrong in their worldviews. And I of course would never defend rapists.

This is irrelevant breeder sh!t to me, but "I just wish that women noticed me for my good behavior!!!" is textbook incel sh!t, Jack.

Except I didn't write that. I am happily married with three kids. I don't care very much about women noticing me.

The "Incel community" believes all sorts of ridiculous stuff, like the whole "black pill" philosophy, which is just plain wrong and defeatist. Also, many of them have abhorrent misogynist views. I am a lifelong feminist.

Basically, I am getting flack for some basic claims rooted in pretty established evolutionary psychology, which I also happen to teach. I have never been of the opinion that facts should just be wished away. Furthermore, I see no discrepancy between being a feminist and also believing in the existence of fairly deep-rooted human instincts that results in some often pretty unfortunate human behaviour patterns.

I have not read through all of this, but I think the flak you're getting is more because you were playing rape apologist for Biden (under the hypothetical that he actually did what is alleged, which he didn't).

[John Dule]

I think one would only get that from my posts if they were intent on reading that into it. This is sometimes the problem with online discussions. I am pretty confident that if we had this discussion in real life nobody in their right mind would ever consider me to be a "rape apologist".

Ok, "rape" is the wrong word to use, I'll agree with that. And you do say a lot of things that are unfortunate truths. The one that I find the most objectionable is this:

Rape is one thing (and I most certainly do not consider this to be rape, no more than a woman grabbing a man's penis should be considered rape), but typical male sexual aggressiveness should not be considered disqualifying IMO. And that includes a lot of the creepy stuff Donald Trump has done (again, excluding the actual rape accusations).

I have debated with myself for some time how to react to the MeToo movement's attitude towards this sort of behavior. I do not like the idea of subjecting people to the justice of the mob, and I don't like passing judgement on people who are accused of sexual misconduct when there is no substantive evidence against them. But at some point I had to ask myself... why should I bother defending guys who behave this way? I've known dudes like Trump in real life; I think they spawn on damp towels in gym locker rooms. I've never liked them and their sadistic frat-boy attitudes, and I've always wanted them to get what's coming to them. The fact that Trump was caught on tape talking about grabbing women's crotches waylays any doubts I might have had about the veracity of the accusations, too. So I absolutely think that his actions are disqualifying, and not at all "typical" of male sexual displays.