shut up!!!
Telling an advocate of reason, moderation, and freedom of speech to shut up because he’s not radical enough is funny. I haven’t been this amused since I called the Samaritans and they put me on hold.
Good post, for a bunnyist counterrevolutionary.
It’s not a new law. It’s an law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and it’s been in effect in Colorado since 2008.
Of course it completely depends on your definition of “screwing with someone else”. Anti discrimination laws automatically screw with someone else by not allowing them to discriminate on the basis of race. Or sex. Or sexual orientation. It would be impossible to write an anti-discrimination law that doesn’t “screw with someone else”. Of course you are aware this “screw with someone else” argument is simply a rehash of the segregation arguments from the 50’s and 60’s right?.
Is it a matter that you think sexual orientation shouldn’t be protected from discrimination like race is? Or is it that you think all anti-discrimination laws that “screw someone else” shouldn’t be allowed.
It’s not a new law. It’s an law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and it’s been in effect in Colorado since 2008.
Of course it completely depends on your definition of “screwing with someone else”. Anti discrimination laws automatically screw with someone else by not allowing them to discriminate on the basis of race. Or sex. Or sexual orientation. It would be impossible to write an anti-discrimination law that doesn’t “screw with someone else”. Of course you are aware this “screw with someone else” argument is simply a rehash of the segregation arguments from the 50’s and 60’s right?.
Is it a matter that you think sexual orientation shouldn’t be protected from discrimination like race is? Or is it that you think all anti-discrimination laws that “screw someone else” shouldn’t be allow
And, to be honest, the rest of your post read a ton like the rationalizations of a man searching for a reason to hate liberals, but not wanting to sound like he supports the more vile of Republican policies. Lotta words, not much substance. Kudos for the use of “intersectionality” though. I think that’s worth 20 points in scrabble.
You know what, you’re worse than a bigot, because you know it’s wrong and just don’t care when people are hurt by it. You talk big about a slippery slope, but it’s been 50 years since we started telling bakers that they were required to serve blacks and whites alike, and where has that slope taken us?
However, it’s a big deal now, when bible thumpers might be affected. You want to swaddle up and protect their bigotry, even though you know it’s wrong.
+10000!!!
This man speaks truth!!!
p.s. I always knew I love Phila for a reason
Cheese, Ham:
I love you guys.
My respect for you dropped dramatically when you missed the obvious Ham n’ Cheese combo. 
Oh goddammit. I could have had that.
Like demons, huh, you mean like this?
To add to the analogy in order to make it more relevant, the guy gets plenty of dates, 2,864,974 more than the other guy, in fact. If there is anyone that is getting rejected, it would be the person who got fewer votes, not the person who got more.
Yeah? ISTM that it was the republican party’s candidate that was calling for mob action and “mob justice” during his rallies. And his supporters are still chanting those “mob justice” slogans during their rallies now.
Thus confirming what I suspected all along. You aren’t interested in discussion. You’re interested in laughing at others. You have not actually participated in any of this discussion. You’re just laughing at people, because you want to poke and prod.
I suspected you just defended Starving Artist because you wanted to be contrary, and now I know that’s true.
And this is irrational nonsense. You’re just using boogeyman tactics and fear. You’ve not put forth anything rational. You haven’t shown why identity politics is bad: that’s just using a right wing boogeyman term. Same with intersectionalism.
Both are completely non offensive: identity politics means that people who have certain attribute in common often have similar issues, and thus have more power if they vote -together as a block. For example, black people have common issue with racism, so voting together against racism give them more power.
Intersectionalism just takes it one step further and says that the whole is not always the sum of its parts: that a black woman may not only have the issues of a black man and a white woman, but her own specific issues. And thus neither of those groups should think they speak for all
There is nothing objectionable about this. It’s just obvious true. But the terms were coined on the left, so the right did their irrational thing and turned them into things to be scared of. They are used when they don’t even apply. (By talking about “white women,” you are talking about both of those concepts, yet here you are saying that they are bad.)
Then you have the “it could happen to my son” fearmongering, and presumption of guilt of the accusers. They must just be making things up. Where’s “it could happen to my daughter”?
And you don’t know where you got the 15 point lead, and you don’t know where you got the 1 percent lead. You didn’t even bother to go get sources. You ignore the obvious that these could be different tests. You ignore possible poll bias. You ignore the dearth of polling. And you cite current polls on an issue that is very new and thus the polls are less likely to reflect.
No citations, and lack of rational reasoning on the subject. You appeal to fear–emotional reasoning, rather than rational.
Rationality isn’t about dressing up irrational concepts in rational clothing. It is about evidence-based reasoning. No, not every liberal is rational at all times. But here we have a conservative trying to be rational and completely failing.
And he’s supposed to be one of the better ones.
Well, yes. Again you’re being irrational. If the term doesn’t actually fit, then we don’t call you that term.
There’s more proof we don’t just use it as a boogeyman term. You’re worse than a bigot, while not actually being a bigot. That happens.
Maybe leave out the snark about adults when you can’t understand something so incredibly basic.
This fantasy version of liberalism that resides on Hannity and Limbaugh’s radio show certainly sounds evil, but it has nothing to do with the believes of the vast majority of real world American liberals. Luckily, there are tons of liberals here on this board who would be happy to answer any questions you have about our beliefs. I’ll start by just saying that the above post has almost nothing to do with my political beliefs, and in fact matches much more closely my understanding of Trump’s usage of identity politics than the liberal movement. But I’m not a Trumpist, so it’s possible I don’t fully understand the political beliefs of him and his supporters. Kind of like how you’re not a liberal, and thus it’s not surprising that you’re so massively, wildly incorrect about liberal beliefs in this post.
I’ll just say that Mitch McConnell, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh are very happy that you’ve bought their fantasy version of the left so strongly. The GOP thanks you for believing in their propaganda.
- What should happen if a guy illegally trying to enter the US gets caught?
- What should happen if a guy who’s already illegally here gets caught?
Depends on the circumstances. The law doesn’t treat every single circumstance in exactly the same way, and rightly so.
Yes, well, that’s, uh, admirable, but could you maybe elaborate?
Like, if someone asks me what should happen to a guy who gets caught robbing a bank, I can say “gosh, it depends on the circumstances; the law doesn’t treat every single circumstance in the same way” — but then I’d, y’know, specify.
There are probably a million different circumstances, and IANAL. But throw out a specific scenario and I’ll do my best. In my understanding, if the Border Patrol sees someone trying to cross illegally, they should detain them.
I know better what we should not be doing – if the law allows this kind of thing, then the laws should be changed such that it is disallowed:
We should not be separating children from their parents due to nonviolent immigration violations. If the parents are to be deported, it’s monstrous to deport them separately from their children, barring a few very unusual circumstances, since that leads to a high likelihood of a family broken up forever. We should not be processing children (anyone, really, but children especially) through the immigration court system without full legal representation. We should permanently welcome all Dreamers who have not committed any crimes (aside from crossing a border as children). We should not force local police to prioritize CIS work above good relations with immigrant communities – otherwise, immigrants may not cooperate with police or even report crimes like rape and child molestation. We should do our best to maintain the American tradition of assimilation and the melting pot, lest we become ghetto-ized with distrustful and separated immigrant communities like exists in parts of Europe. Dearborn, MI is a shining example of the positive contribution of immigration (aside from the most obvious examples like NYC and LA), and an example of how to make a wonderful melting-pot city out of immigrants from very, very different cultures than the US.
In the long run there is no downside to being a welcoming place for immigrants, in general. That doesn’t mean open borders. But it does mean always rejecting anti-immigrant sentiment, and never blaming immigrants for the problems a country is facing. Blaming immigrants is a tried and true political strategy that often works to get people elected, but it’s nigh-always factually wrong (and nigh-always leads to significant suffering for innocent people).
Why don’t you answer your questions first?
What should happen?