2017 PotWR Round 2: The Debate / Town Hall

[The Diplomat]

No one has to do anything. There's no platform calling for legally enforced politeness. You're free to call transgendered people whatever insults you want to call them. Even if you're among the 70% of college kids who know what "gender" means, you can still hate them, shout at them as they walk by, write screeds about how awful they are, whatever.

Pretty sure those are hate crimes, bro.

 

[HomerThompson]

You're trying to white knight GC here, even though I'm pretty sure you know that he did misrepresent the argument. And, yeah, it's predictable that if people misrepresent an argument, they'll have people saying that they are misrepresenting an argument.



Again, not if you represent the arguments honestly. Climate-science denialists are making an objective claim about the world--either that climate scientists are collaborating on a hoax to fool the public into thinking that the world is getting warmer (or that the warming is due to human activity) or that they are missing something obvious. In this controversy, you're not seeing differing factual claims--it's just about the meaning of the word "gender" (you're insisting that it should be changed to be identical to sex, while others think that it is convenient to have two different words to refer to different things).



No one has to do anything. There's no platform calling for legally enforced politeness. You're free to call transgendered people whatever insults you want to call them. Even if you're among the 70% of college kids who know what "gender" means, you can still hate them, shout at them as they walk by, write screeds about how awful they are, whatever.

I chuckled at, "screeds". Good word choice.

 

[HomerThompson]

Pretty sure those are hate crimes, bro.

Your posting is a hate crime.

 

[The Diplomat]

Your posting is a hate crime.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Pretty sure those are hate crimes, bro.

Seriously, though, what is the political angle here? Say Democrats adopt "transgendered people are the spawn of Satan" in their platform. What will change about the world? Nothing, right? It's not a political issue, and your claim (this is coming from GC defending you) about the "SJW wing" taking over the party is way off.

 

[The Diplomat]

Seriously, though, what is the political angle here? Say Democrats adopt "transgendered people are the spawn of Satan" in their platform. What will change about the world? Nothing, right? It's not a political issue, and your claim (this is coming from GC defending you) about the "SJW wing" taking over the party is way off.

Would it be best to not acknowledge or observe the SJWs then, even if they show up on the news for being offended either at a college campus or twitter, etc. ?

Like I said, the politicians may not have completely caught up (some are catching on), but a good bit of the loudness is coming from the SJWs/BLM/etc. section.

Also, I don't even get why what I'm saying is that bad. I'm not even saying the entire Democratic party is like this. I specifically mention "wings" and "sections" to illustrate that even if they aren't a majority, they are a very vocal minority.

 

[Gutter Chris]

You're trying to white knight GC here, even though I'm pretty sure you know that he did misrepresent the argument. And, yeah, it's predictable that if people misrepresent an argument, they'll have people saying that they are misrepresenting an argument.



Again, not if you represent the arguments honestly. Climate-science denialists are making an objective claim about the world--either that climate scientists are collaborating on a hoax to fool the public into thinking that the world is getting warmer (or that the warming is due to human activity) or that they are missing something obvious. In this controversy, you're not seeing differing factual claims--it's just about the meaning of the word "gender" (you're insisting that it should be changed to be identical to sex, while others think that it is convenient to have two different words to refer to different things).



No one has to do anything. There's no platform calling for legally enforced politeness. You're free to call transgendered people whatever insults you want to call them. Even if you're among the 70% of college kids who know what "gender" means, you can still hate them, shout at them as they walk by, write screeds about how awful they are, whatever.

Well to get back to my original point you arent going to notice the democrats shifting way to the left if you hold the same views now are you

 

[irish_thug]

Pretty sure those are hate crimes, bro.

They are in canada

 

[Jack V Savage]

Would it be best to not acknowledge or observe the SJWs then, even if they show up on the news for being offended either at a college campus or twitter, etc. ?

Surely there is a middle ground between denying they exist and asserting that they control the world (like IDL) or the Democratic Party.

Also, I don't even get why what I'm saying is that bad. I'm not even saying the entire Democratic party is like this. I specifically mention "wings" and "sections" to illustrate that even if they aren't a majority, they are a very vocal minority.

Why are you using "bad"? I said that your claim that the SJW wing controls the party is false. It's not like evil of you to say something that is wrong, though, you know, try to do better.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well to get back to my original point you arent going to notice the democrats shifting way to the left if you hold the same views now are you

It's not even a view. It's just getting the right answer on a vocabulary test. Doesn't even imply any position on transgendered people.

And Democrats have shifted to the left. No denial of that from me. Lots of support for single payer now, increased support for tuition assistance (free public colleges in some cases), support for higher MWs, increased progressiveness in the tax code, etc. The stuff you and Diplomat are talking about is a non-issue to most Democrats, but right-wing propaganda efforts try to portray it as the central issue in campaigns because right-wing economic policy (like their healthcare and foreign policy) is very unpopular.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You're trying to white knight GC here, even though I'm pretty sure you know that he did misrepresent the argument.

Call it what you want. If that's white knighting so be it. lol at you reading my mind now.

 

[HomerThompson]

Call it what you want. If that's white knighting so be it. lol at you reading my mind now.

Everyone ascribes motives to others based on their actions and words.

 

[Gutter Chris]

The stuff you and Diplomat are talking about is a non-issue to most Democrats, but right-wing propaganda efforts try to portray it as the central issue in campaigns because right-wing economic policy (like their healthcare and foreign policy) is very unpopular.

Is that why the democrats are winning elections all over the place jack ?

 

[The Diplomat]

Surely there is a middle ground between denying they exist and asserting that they control the world (like IDL) or the Democratic Party.



Why are you using "bad"? I said that your claim that the SJW wing controls the party is false. It's not like evil of you to say something that is wrong, though, you know, try to do better.

Would it be off the mark to say that if the party goes further left, then eventually the SJW wing will have much more sway within the party? Some people view the trend as natural, so it wouldn't surprise me to see more jump on board.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Is that why the democrats are winning elections all over the place jack ?

There is actually a big wave brewing, and we've seen a huge shift in the past year. But you didn't address my argument. Right-wing economic policy is very unpopular, which is why they try to tie the left to extreme views on social issues. The message isn't, "vote for us so we can raise taxes on the middle class to pay for giveaways to rich heirs," it's "vote for us because Democrats want to force you to become trannies."

 

[HomerThompson]

Would it be off the mark to say that if the party goes further left, then eventually the SJW wing will have much more sway within the party? Some people view the trend as natural, so it wouldn't surprise me to see more jump on board.

Please explain when the party went left. It is currently to the right of FDR. Please advise. Thanks.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Everyone ascribes motives to others based on their actions and words.

It goes a little deeper than that here. If you don't admit that then clearly you're a liar.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Would it be off the mark to say that if the party goes further left, then eventually the SJW wing will have much more sway within the party? Some people view the trend as natural, so it wouldn't surprise me to see more jump on board.

The "SJW" stuff isn't a natural progression along the spectrum. I'd say that it's possible that any party can move in any direction along any line. The SJW stuff is extreme by its nature, though, so it can't become dominant in one party unless society as a whole drifts that way.

 

[HomerThompson]

It goes a little deeper than that here. If you don't admit that then clearly you're a liar.

I disagree with your characterization of @Jack V Savage (white knight mode engaged), but I laughed hard at this post. Well played.

 

[Gutter Chris]

There is actually a big wave brewing, and we've seen a huge shift in the past year. But you didn't address my argument. Right-wing economic policy is very unpopular, which is why they try to tie the left to extreme views on social issues. The message isn't, "vote for us so we can raise taxes on the middle class to pay for giveaways to rich heirs," it's "vote for us because Democrats want to force you to become trannies."

I agree right wing economics isnt popular yet the republicans continue to win. I see the democrats trying to break things down and speak to each tribe except white guys and I see republicans willing to play that game and pick them up

People are into the taxes and the healthcare I agree but they dont like the tranny shit , the blm shit , the 70 things white people cant say articles coming out of the left wing media and it troubles me because I am not a right winger and would like to see some of those reforms you just mentioned actually pass but it would seem that the left cant keep from alienating middle America one of the groups needed to actually win instead of talk

And since you wanted to go there the one who is being dishonest is you because you are a tribal democrat and seem to be blind to these issues . You know the issues that put trump in the whitehouse