California Doing California Things

[Emily Lake]

What the fuck do you think the outcome of this will be? What benefit is there to the public? Or do you only care about how much political use progressives can make by increasing division?

I'm pretty sure that what this is about is laying the groundwork for the gigantic theft referred to as "reparations".
Tom

If you think there will ever be a successful reparations bill for American slavery that forces white individuals to pay money to black individuals, you are hopelessly naive and easily manipulated.

California Reparations Task Force - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Are you naive, or a propagandist, Poli? Or are you merely ignorant of what’s going on in CA?


ETA, this bill requiring disclosure of info from over150 years ago, in a state that never allowed slavery in the first place, is a direct result of the reparations task force. It’s 100% a step toward a monetary transfer.

Well aware. I know some of the people who have done research for that task force, in fact. But it's not actually going to happen. Even most of the people involved are well aware that any intiative for a direct payment will end eventually with a governor's veto, if it even gets that far. And your "nightmare scenario" of individual whites paying individual blacks reparations, as opposed to the government as a whole paying reparations to citizens who have been harmed by it, is nothing but a fantasy on your part. It has never been proposed.

You really seem to enjoy making things up.

Also, you are ignorant of some very important parts of California's history. Chattel slavery was practiced here for well more than a century, involuntary servitude is still legal within our prison system, and illegal human trafficking plagues us to this day. If you actually read Wikipedia links instead of just posting them, you'd learn some things. Your own link tells the story perfectly clearly, had you paused to read it. The activities of the Reparations task force are not some secret conspiracy, nor are they as you describe.

Oh? The intention of the task force is NOT to pursue reparations paid to people whose great-great-great-great-grandparent was a slave?

If not, then its sole purpose would be a political performance untended to sow more racial conflict so the democrats can save the black people from invented abuses. Politically savvy, but entirely heartless and dishonest.

 

[Emily Lake]

Seriously, you’re the one who supports using black peoples as political pawns, and who wants to create division and conflict.

You’re not inclusive, and you are intolerant of diversity.

Using black people as poltical pawns to - do what? You yourself admitted that a middle-class "white" guy is unlikely to benefit in any way from this law's passage. You're weeping tears of blood because you don't want another state to enact a law that makes you feel bad. That's fucking selfish, it's not "inclusive" or "tolerant", and it certainly doesn't lend itself to "diversity", whatever that is supposed to mean. We have a diverse population here no matter what laws get passed, that's just a fact.

Again, you really seem to enjoy just making shit up. Your arms must get tired tilting at those windmills.

 

[Emily Lake]

It’s unjust to seek punitive action against people for crimes they didn’t commit, and weren’t even crimes at the time they occurred.

I agree. So does everyone else. That's only happened in your tortured fantasies, not in real life. No one is getting arrested for crimes they did not commit, and if they were so arrested, the court system would correctly rule that detention improper and illegal. You're so far out in La-La Land you've lost all perspective on how American law even works.

Lack of reading comprehension skills would also inhibit an understanding of figurative language, so I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at your “misunderstanding”.

 

[Politesse]

You know, if you'd just calm down for a fucking second, we could have a real discussion about the issue at hand. You're trying to make me out to be some weird caricature of the Evil Woke Liberal, and its blinding you to the fact that we don't even entirely disagree about this.

 

[Emily Lake]

You know, if you'd just calm down for a fucking second, we could have a real discussion about the issue at hand. You're trying to make me out to be some weird caricature of the Evil Woke Liberal, and its blinding you to the fact that we don't even entirely disagree about this.

You should reread your own posts, and consider who really needs to calm down. You somehow feel you’re in the right to call me a racist engaging in nazi rhetoric, and to be inexcusably rude and hateful toward me. I already told you I’m not going to put up with it, and I will reflect YOUR behavior back at you.

If you want a real discussion, then behave appropriately. Don’t fucking chide me to “calm down” while insulting me in the exact same breath.

 

[Emily Lake]

we don't even entirely disagree about this.

In the spirit of a reset (which you are also capable of doing, bear in mind), I’d like to point out that you have entirely elided my point.

Your premise seems to be that actually making specific white individuals pay monetary reparations to specific black individuals will never happen. You appear to have completely missed that I never claimed such, nor even implied it. That’s a leap you made all by yourself, and isn’t supported by my posts.

For decades now, Democrats have supported and amplified the notion that the US is a super racist nation, and that white Americans are majority racists who oppress black people. Democrats - not exclusively politicians, but supporters and members of the party - have made a platform of majority American culture being synonymous with white supremacy, and that white people in general should make amends for it. The narrative of white people in general being inherently racist as a state of being is woven throughout every aspect of work by Ibram X Kendi, Robin Di’Angelo, and many other influential activists.

The fact that their premises are false is hand-waved away. Anyone who points out that this isn’t actually true gets labeled a racist.

Over the past couple of decades, especially the last decade and a half, the Democratic Party itself has embedded this narrative into its platforms. The message, even if indirect from actual politicians, is that republicans and anyone who votes for republicans are racists. They’ve embedded the implied message that the only reason anyone would ever vote republican is because they’re racist. You must know this is true- it’s been a prevalent sentiment here on IIDB. It’s not subtle, it’s not something that goes unnoticed. In the past decade, it’s evolved further so that any position that comes into alignment with a conservative view is also framed as being motivated solely by racism (or other bigotry).

CA’s Reparations Task Force isn’t intended to punish individual people individually, but I also never claimed or implied such was the case. But theres also a difference between intent and outcome. The stated intent is more or less to quantify how much racism has cost black people, and make recommendations on how to “fix” society to make up for the past. Which sounds very noble, sure.

But the outcome isn’t so noble, and if you understand human behavior at all, it’s incredibly easy to see that. There is no way for it to avoid increasing tension. The undertaking itself inherently pits people against each other on the basis of race. It frames black people as a collective group, as being perpetual victims of the oppression of white people as a collective group. It positions all white people as bad, solely as a result of the color of their skin; it messages indirectly that white people are by their very nature racist, and black people are by their nature victims unable to escape the abuses of white people.

There are fancier words used, and lots of rhetoric wrapped around it. But at its core, that’s the message that is conveyed.

This bill demands that companies go on fishing expeditions into records from well over a century and a half ago in order to find out whether that company ever “benefited” from slavery. It ignores that slavery was legal at the time. I think slavery is abhorrent, including modern slavery in all its softer forms too. But that doesn’t change the fact that it was legal and commonplace at the time it occurred.

Nothing is being “hidden” right now. What’s being demanded by this bill is to dig deep into history… and for all intents, publicly confess the sins of one’s ancestors. What’s the point? What public benefit is accomplished by this?

None. There is no possible good thing that can come if this. At least not for the public in general.

The absolute best scenario is that the state wants to confiscate money from those companies as a punitive measure for lawful behavior from nearly 200 years ago.

But you’re right, it would probably get vetoed. But actually making real reparations (no matter how misguided that idea is) probably isn’t the actual point.

Because there *is* a benefit to be gained: a political one. The act of fishing and disclosing the “sins” of companies is highly likely to result in opprobrium toward those companies by the black community, as well as democrat supporters- especially progressives who use class oppression as a cornerstone of their worldview. It provides ammunition for democratic politicians to leverage. It allows democrats to continue playing up the “racist America” narrative… and to position their party as the solution.

Never mind that this pits races against each other. Never mind that it isn’t actually true. Never mind that it sows the seeds of conflict. It’s politically useful to use the entire black community as pawns to gain power.

That’s the problem I see. It makes things worse for all citizens. It won’t fix anything, because there’s nothing to actually fix. It’s politically useful rage-bait that harms our entire society, and it’s ruthlessly and heartlessly being exploited in the pursuit of power.

 

[robnisch]

Reparation would be near impossible to carry out. And very divisive. What I would like to see is better education of our history.
Conservatives and especially the tRump admin has actually tried to "whitewash" the past.
And should we give the natives back their land?
Just acknowledge the contribution they made to build this nation.
But we don't want people to feel bad.

 

[Politesse]

Reparation would be near impossible to carry out. And very divisive. What I would like to see is better education of our history.

Which is a major goal of the California Reparations Task Force. Monetary "pay outs" are only one form reparations can take. Most members of the committee DO believe that monetary compensation is the most fair and just answer the government should have to recompense theft of generations of stolen wealth and the creation of an artificial underclass on the basis of former and current subjugation. Millions of lives and livelihoods have been stolen over the course of four centuries, all for the sake of money. Money cannot make that right, but it is the most obvious and equivalent form of redress. It's not a lie to say that this is something the Task Force recommends.

But, they know as well as anyone that it isn't going to happen. So they have also been thinking of a wide range of options for how the government can save money by "symbolizing" their grief and regret on the cheap. Of the actual legislative solutions they have proposed, none have been expensive. We're discussing one, which has neglible costs to the state and likely no cost to companies except a few hours of labor. Simply telling the truth about the past is not a significant business or governmental expense. "Truth is free, and it makes us free", or it should be. When corporations build walls around truth, of course, it raises the price tag. Like the millions they have been dropping on lobbyists, advertisers, and media airtime to try and kill every permutation of the task force. But that is voluntary on their part, not necessitated by the bill itself.

 

[Tigers!]

Why are you so dedicated to defending a policy that transparently increases racial tension. I’m curious how you - a white progressive - benefits from this.

That speaks volumes as to how you see the world. A race traitor, am I now? Fuck your Nazi bullshit to the lowest circle of hell.

What the fuck is wrong with you? White people using black people for political gain doesn’t meet any rational definition of “race traitor”.

Then again, rational has nothing to do with you at all. So I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that you can’t engage your brain any further than the average useful idiot steeped in pot. You seem incapable of reason, and your argumentative skills top out at namecalling.

Fuck your hate-filled arrogance.

I am really trying hard to see the love and tolerance that progressives spout constantly but it is greatly obscured by the fog of anger and intolerance in the atmosphere.

 

[Politesse]

I am really trying hard to see the love and tolerance that progressives spout constantly but it is greatly obscured by the fog of anger and intolerance in the atmosphere.

If you are "trying to understand" Progressives, but only meet hostility, that says more about you than you think. Just what do you think they are so "intolerant" of? I can only speak for myself (though I would not really choose to call myself a Progressive, given a choice) but there really are only a handful of things in this world that I truly dislike. Racism, hypocrisy, greed. People playing dumb who I know could do better if they tried. Authoritarian solutions to social problems. Disregard for science. Disregard for the natural world. That's about it. I don't see how any of those predilections of mine could be called intolerance; all are rejections of various forms of intolerance.

 

[Patooka]

One of Gavin Newsom's greatest disappointments of the era unveils flying car

Elon Musk last night unveiled his first flying car, launching the Tesla Roadster with a spectacular demonstration. In a stunning clip, the vehicle goes up an upside down ramp before doing a flip and falling toward the ground – before the attitude-control and rear rocket thrusters activate and allow it to hover to safety, as the crowd roars. Musk declared the new vehicle is 'going to crush every track record that has ever existed', and claimed it would be available by 2028. He did caution, however, that 'this is not necessarily a safety-optimized car, but it takes the fun meter to 11 out of ten'.

Daily Mail

We are governed by donkeys in California.

I'm a bit behind the times on Elon's latest grift, but I thought Swiz might be interested to know how the market reacted Musk's Simpsonesque car;

 

[Tigers!]

I am really trying hard to see the love and tolerance that progressives spout constantly but it is greatly obscured by the fog of anger and intolerance in the atmosphere.

If you are "trying to understand" Progressives, but only meet hostility, that says more about you than you think. Just what do you think they are so "intolerant" of? I can only speak for myself (though I would not really choose to call myself a Progressive, given a choice) but there really are only a handful of things in this world that I truly dislike. Racism, hypocrisy, greed. People playing dumb who I know could do better if they tried. Authoritarian solutions to social problems. Disregard for science. Disregard for the natural world. That's about it. I don't see how any of those predilections of mine could be called intolerance; all are rejections of various forms of intolerance.

Just reading the way some here on these fora speak to each other and treat each other is enough to make me wonder.

Thank you for assuming that I was responding to the way I am supposedly treated. I was not actually. I was thinking of another poster here who gets piled only rather tiresomely and who would be found in that broad church called "progressive". That does not stop them being treated very shabbily by others. As you say it says more about you than me.

 

[Politesse]

My apologies for misinterpreting your meaning, Tigers.

 

[Emily Lake]

Reparation would be near impossible to carry out. And very divisive. What I would like to see is better education of our history.

Which is a major goal of the California Reparations Task Force. Monetary "pay outs" are only one form reparations can take. Most members of the committee DO believe that monetary compensation is the most fair and just answer the government should have to recompense theft of generations of stolen wealth and the creation of an artificial underclass on the basis of former and current subjugation. Millions of lives and livelihoods have been stolen over the course of four centuries, all for the sake of money. Money cannot make that right, but it is the most obvious and equivalent form of redress. It's not a lie to say that this is something the Task Force recommends.

I think your choice of words here is divisive narrative framing, rather than truth. Nothing has been stolen, nobody is subjugated, there isn't an artificial underclass.

You have a whole lot of marxist buzzwords in there. But you're light on actual reason and thought.

But, they know as well as anyone that it isn't going to happen. So they have also been thinking of a wide range of options for how the government can save money by "symbolizing" their grief and regret on the cheap.

Let's all beat our breasts and lament what horrible people we are. Apparently struggle sessions are necessary to cleanse society of our ills?

Or... you know... to grant control and power to whoever is in charge demanding such submission rituals. Nothing quite like public shaming, yeah?

Of the actual legislative solutions they have proposed, none have been expensive. We're discussing one, which has neglible costs to the state and likely no cost to companies except a few hours of labor. Simply telling the truth about the past is not a significant business or governmental expense. "Truth is free, and it makes us free", or it should be. When corporations build walls around truth, of course, it raises the price tag. Like the millions they have been dropping on lobbyists, advertisers, and media airtime to try and kill every permutation of the task force. But that is voluntary on their part, not necessitated by the bill itself.

Tell you what - you go dig through your family tree, and tell all of us here whether or not any of your ancestors in the last 400 years have benefited from slavery, or from the oppression of women, or have ever been involved in any form of discrimination against foreigners or homosexuals or women. Please spend your time to do a thorough job, accounting for all of it (with receipts of course), and provide us with a public exposure of how tainted your blood is.

The bill isn't "teaaring down walls" - the walls don't exist. The bill demands that companies unearth documents from centuries ago, dig up all the skeletons, and then publicly divulge other people's sins.

For what purpose? What public good does this actually serve? What healing with this provide?

I don't think it can accomplish anything good, it serves only to create more division and more conflict. Mostly, it serves to further the power of democrats who use black people as pawns.

I suppose if your objective is a marxist overthrow of the country, it's a fine idea. Me, I think it's a horrific idea.

 

[Emily Lake]

I am really trying hard to see the love and tolerance that progressives spout constantly but it is greatly obscured by the fog of anger and intolerance in the atmosphere.

If you are "trying to understand" Progressives, but only meet hostility, that says more about you than you think.

You treat many people here with hostility and hatred, myself included. Consistently and pervasively.

Just what do you think they are so "intolerant" of?

Anything that you personally think is "conservative" in some twisted version of the term. Views that don't align with yours on things you think are important.

I can only speak for myself (though I would not really choose to call myself a Progressive, given a choice) but there really are only a handful of things in this world that I truly dislike. Racism, hypocrisy, greed.

The problem is that you slap those labels on any number of policy disagreements, as if merely saying it makes it true. You toss out labels where they don't fit at all, then use those labels to justify your own contemptuous incivility.

People playing dumb who I know could do better if they tried. Authoritarian solutions to social problems. Disregard for science. Disregard for the natural world. That's about it. I don't see how any of those predilections of mine could be called intolerance; all are rejections of various forms of intolerance.

You put pretty words to it. The problem is that some of us watch what you do, rather than just accepting what you say. Your actions give the lie to your noble words, Poli.

We hear you say that you value empathy, and then we observe you offer none to those you disagree with. We hear you say you value diversity, but we observe you acting with aggressive contempt toward diversity of thought. We hear you say you value science, but we observe you arguing for emotionally-driven pseudoscience that causes harm. You claim to be tolerant, but you label as "intolerance" anything that disagrees with your ideology, then justify your authoritarian attacks on those views as "rejecting intolerance".

You offer words that your actions betray.

 

[Politesse]

You put pretty words to it. The problem is that some of us watch what you do, rather than just accepting what you say. Your actions give the lie to your noble words, Poli.

This one is truly baffling to me. What "actions" are you referring to? Making posts on an internet forum? In a thread whose sole purpose is to make fun of people the OP thinks are dumb?

We hear you say that you value empathy, and then we observe you offer none to those you disagree with.

This is just silly. Half the things you're so pissed about in this thread are about me being too empathetic to groups you're pissed at. Muslims, trans people, Black Americans, the Democratic Party, Gavin Newsom, etc. I disagree with all of the above on a lot of if not most issues. That's not the problem. It's inevitable, because none of those groups is a monolith, and no individual is consistent over time. I don't mind being disagreed with. But what you're claiming in ridiculous.

We hear you say you value diversity, but we observe you acting with aggressive contempt toward diversity of thought.

What "actions" are you referring to? Making... forum posts? It's a discussion forum, I'm allowed to disagree with the arguments you make.

We hear you say you value science, but we observe you arguing for emotionally-driven pseudoscience that causes harm.

Not that I am aware of.

You claim to be tolerant, but you label as "intolerance" anything that disagrees with your ideology, then justify your authoritarian attacks on those views as "rejecting intolerance".

Well, no. By "intolerant" I mean intolerance. As a certain popular right wing luminary once adjoined us all to remember, A is A.

As for authoritarianism, I'm baffled as to what sort of authority you think I have to wield. I guess if you took my summer course, I could dock your grade if you included an unsupported claim in an essay, but that's about it. If you mean in terms of the political or legislative policies I support (which I would not consider to be "taking an action" as opposed to "noble words" anyway) you are mistaken. I do not support authoritarian government policies.

 

[Emily Lake]

You put pretty words to it. The problem is that some of us watch what you do, rather than just accepting what you say. Your actions give the lie to your noble words, Poli.

This one is truly baffling to me. What "actions" are you referring to? Making posts on an internet forum? In a thread whose sole purpose is to make fun of people the OP thinks are dumb?

We hear you say that you value empathy, and then we observe you offer none to those you disagree with.

This is just silly. Half the things you're so pissed about in this thread are about me being too empathetic to groups you're pissed at. Muslims, trans people, Black Americans, the Democratic Party, Gavin Newsom, etc. I disagree with all of the above on a lot of if not most issues. That's not the problem. It's inevitable, because none of those groups is a monolith, and no individual is consistent over time. I don't mind being disagreed with. But what you're claiming in ridiculous.

See, here's the problem in a nutshell. You have decided that I'm "pissed off" at those groups, and you can't seem to fathom that I'm not. Like, what on earth would give you the impression that I'm pissed off at black people? Or even have negative things to say about them? Where are you getting that?

I'm not "pissed off" at muslims. I recognize that islam, as a religion, is absolutely a threat to the values of western democracies, and a very real threat to women of all sorts. Women are humans too, you know, and most of us rather value our liberty. And I have witnessed within my lifetime the complete withdrawal of rights from women under islamic rule. And whether it makes you happy to acknowledge it or not, a sizeable portion of muslim immigrants and asylum seekers coming into Europe and North America share the same view toward women as the governments of Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and several other middle-eastern islamic nations. The tendency of some people to blindly assume that opposition to a destructive and toxic belief system is "racism" or "islamaphobia" instead of understanding that women have value is a serious problem.

I'm also not "pissed off" at trans people. Most of them are just fine. I am, however, pissed off at the ideology involved, the way it's been shoehorned into every aspect of life, and more than anything else the way it deprives women of safety, dignity, and the right to participate in society on equal footing with men. I am extremely opposed to male prisoners being placed in female wards on the basis of their claim to subjective internal feelings of womanliness, because sex is not gender, and prisons aren't divided on feelings. Sports, intimate spaces, prisons, etc. are divided on the basis of sex - something that is real and tangible and has enormous impact on our lives. Granting males of the human species the ability to violate female boundaries on the declaration of their internal feelings has very negative consequences for women. But you don't want to even be bothered to consider that, you just want to declare that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow a bad person acting from a bad place. I don't think you've ever even bothered to consider the implications of transgender policies on actual real women.

I didn't used to have any problems with the Democratic party. I've voted Dem more often than I've voted Rep. Hell, I've voted 3rd party more often than I've voted Rep! My issues with recent Dems is that they've moved far down the line of reasonability into policies I think are bad for the country and bad for our culture. Something has gone awry, and I can't see that Dems are acting in the interest of the country as a whole at all - they seem to be acting solely for their own power in ways that I think cause harm. Newsome is part of that - he, and many other CA politicians keep doing things that sound pretty on paper but have easily foreseeable negative consequences. Some of them are just downright stupid. I think a lot of it is self-serving and ruthlessly done just to keep people so upset and downtrodden that they can keep framing themselves as the "good guys" who are going to "rescue" people... but the help will never arise because it's not politically beneficial to fix anything, it's far better to always be the person promising a non-existent solution and pointing fingers at the other party as the bad guys that kept it from happening.

The problem here, is that you seem to think that my criticism of Dems signals support for Reps. And that's just completely wrongheaded. I have a very Malcolm X view of politics - Reps are wolves, and you know they're bad and will eat you; Dems are foxes that look like they're smiling while they bleed you dry. I'd prefer obvious evil to pretend good any day - they do less long-term harm, and the harm they do is usually easier to recover from.

It's risk evaluation with consideration to value-at-risk, as well as how much of the risk can be mitigated, managed, or avoided. Right now, dems are riskier than reps in my eyes. That hasn't historically been the case, but things have changed.

We hear you say you value diversity, but we observe you acting with aggressive contempt toward diversity of thought.

What "actions" are you referring to? Making... forum posts? It's a discussion forum, I'm allowed to disagree with the arguments you make.

You can disagree all you want. Lots of people disagree. But you don't merely disagree - you do it with contempt, with malice, and with accusations and insinuations of evil. You name-call and you denigrate. You don't engage in reasoned discussion and with consideration for the other person's view. You don't treat your interlocutors with respect or civility.

You don't interact with your opponent with empathy, compassion, or tolerance.

We hear you say you value science, but we observe you arguing for emotionally-driven pseudoscience that causes harm.

Not that I am aware of.

I'm quite certain that this is true. You aren't aware.

But you should be.

You claim to be tolerant, but you label as "intolerance" anything that disagrees with your ideology, then justify your authoritarian attacks on those views as "rejecting intolerance".

Well, no. By "intolerant" I mean intolerance. As a certain popular right wing luminary once adjoined us all to remember, A is A.

As for authoritarianism, I'm baffled as to what sort of authority you think I have to wield. I guess if you took my summer course, I could dock your grade if you included an unsupported claim in an essay, but that's about it. If you mean in terms of the political or legislative policies I support (which I would not consider to be "taking an action" as opposed to "noble words" anyway) you are mistaken. I do not support authoritarian government policies.

I think you don't recognize them as authoritarian in the first place. You also fail to recognize that authoritarianism isn't limited to government policy. Mennonites are very authoritarian, but take almost no part in governance.

 

[Toni]

You know, if you'd just calm down for a fucking second, we could have a real discussion about the issue at hand. You're trying to make me out to be some weird caricature of the Evil Woke Liberal, and its blinding you to the fact that we don't even entirely disagree about this.

You should reread your own posts, and consider who really needs to calm down. You somehow feel you’re in the right to call me a racist engaging in nazi rhetoric, and to be inexcusably rude and hateful toward me. I already told you I’m not going to put up with it, and I will reflect YOUR behavior back at you.

If you want a real discussion, then behave appropriately. Don’t fucking chide me to “calm down” while insulting me in the exact same breath.

You seem all in on telling other people to stop calling you racist. AFAIK, no one has called you a racist. Or a nazi.

And you seem intent on inferring malice when staunch disagreement is much more apt. You are aware that people can disagree, very sharply, without there being any malice intended. For other examples, see most of my discussions with Derec or Loren. We almost always disagree but I don't take their posts as malicious and I don't intend malice in mine.

And I don't read malice in other people's posts in response to your posts. I'm only pointing this out in hopes that you will maybe consider that it's not malice but sharp disagreement from people who are as strong minded as you are. The world is not out to get you. Nor is this forum. But a bunch of us disagree with you. Doesn't mean we wouldn't stop and help you fix a flat or bring you soup if you were sick in bed, assuming that was something we lived close enough and knew you IRL to do.

I admit I have a high tolerance for conflict. It started when I was a young teen going toe to toe with my dad over (insert social issue of the day).

 

[Politesse]

I'd prefer obvious evil to pretend good any day

That, is obvious.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You put pretty words to it. The problem is that some of us watch what you do, rather than just accepting what you say. Your actions give the lie to your noble words, Poli.

This one is truly baffling to me. What "actions" are you referring to? Making posts on an internet forum? In a thread whose sole purpose is to make fun of people the OP thinks are dumb?

We hear you say that you value empathy, and then we observe you offer none to those you disagree with.

This is just silly. Half the things you're so pissed about in this thread are about me being too empathetic to groups you're pissed at. Muslims, trans people, Black Americans, the Democratic Party, Gavin Newsom, etc. I disagree with all of the above on a lot of if not most issues. That's not the problem. It's inevitable, because none of those groups is a monolith, and no individual is consistent over time. I don't mind being disagreed with. But what you're claiming in ridiculous.

See, here's the problem in a nutshell. You have decided that I'm "pissed off" at those groups, and you can't seem to fathom that I'm not.

I'd say you are more or less distracted, at best, by such groups. SCOTUS rules a number of things that impact our daily lives (no Muslims there), but you are looking under rocks to find other threats to our way of life in the US.

I'm not "pissed off" at muslims. I recognize that islam, as a religion, is absolutely a threat to the values of western democracies, and a very real threat to women of all sorts. Women are humans too, you know, and most of us rather value our liberty. And I have witnessed within my lifetime the complete withdrawal of rights from women under islamic rule. And whether it makes you happy to acknowledge it or not, a sizeable portion of muslim immigrants and asylum seekers coming into Europe and North America share the same view toward women as the governments of Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and several other middle-eastern islamic nations. The tendency of some people to blindly assume that opposition to a destructive and toxic belief system is "racism" or "islamaphobia" instead of understanding that women have value is a serious problem.

We are one Christian SCOTUS ruling away from legal bans on contraception. Conservative Christians control our SCOTUS. They are the actual source of women losing rights in the United States. Not Muslims hiding under rocks.

I'm also not "pissed off" at trans people. Most of them are just fine. I am, however, pissed off at the ideology involved, the way it's been shoehorned into every aspect of life, and more than anything else the way it deprives women of safety, dignity, and the right to participate in society on equal footing with men.

Every aspect of life? I'm struggling to find any aspect of life there is actually an impact. Trans aren't stuffing locker rooms, invading women's sports, filling women's prisons. Trans, like Muslims in America are your dragons.

I didn't used to have any problems with the Democratic party.

I don't ever remember you being all that pro-Democrat, even before you were banned here originally.

I've voted Dem more often than I've voted Rep. Hell, I've voted 3rd party more often than I've voted Rep! My issues with recent Dems is that they've moved far down the line of reasonability into policies I think are bad for the country and bad for our culture.

No, they haven't. This isn't remotely true. It is a myth created by the right-wing. The word trans isn't in any Democrat paid ad on TV or online. In Ohio, we have a trans woman going on about how Sen. Brown allows people like them to be manipulated as minors to get surgery... when she was 19 when she had treatment... in fucking Texas... and clearly appears to identify as being a woman still.