Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[ceraa]

Since the "deplorable" thing came up here's a few questions about that that I've had on my mind, because I never quite understood the problem with it:

1) Given Trump's own statements and actions, his endorsement from the KKK and other such pleasant individuals, and events like these

Hide

and others, what exactly is disagreeable about this? How are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic people not deplorable? Is the problem that she used the word "half" when it was probably a different percentage, even though she prefaced it with saying it's a generalization? Is it that she said some (!) of them are "irredeembale"? The only part that appears clearly wrong to me is the "they are not America" thing, given how the election turned out, but please do enlighten me.

because clinton supporters would never commit any act of violence.

 

[elcheeso]

I'm aware of Mike Pence and his history, and I've said before that I'm not really fond of him. Obviously I'm against anything like conversion therapy but I don't think anything like that is going to happen under a Trump presidency, I guess we'll just have to see, but I'm pretty certain they aren't going to try to take away LGBT rights. I've done some research and even though the source is a bit partisan I think this article sums Mike Pence's history about this issue well. I don't see anything about him promoting shock therapy, just something about "changing sexual behaviors" 16 years ago which could be interpreted different ways, and in any case has no place here but doing that would be political suicide for them.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/10/stop-calling-mike-pence-homophobic/

Relying on the dictionary definition to excuse Pence's support of conversion therapy is completely ridiculous and ignores the actual rhetoric surrounding it, which, yeah, considers orientation and behaviour to be the same thing when it comes to being not-straight. Like... While yeah, the electric shock thing is possibly a stretch (it and aversion therapy were definitely perceived as cornerstones to conversion therapy by the public in the 90s, but I'm not sure whether that had changed by 2000), it's still showing a complete lack of understanding of how ex-gay groups and programs think about what counts as success. Celibacy has always been seen as a success in conversion, and conversion therapy has always been about changing sexual behaviours, even if the person still has same-sex attractions. This author doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Legitimate Username]

Rather, how is political correctness enforced into your minds during your education?
Is political correctness/ racial equality taught in your schools?
How is racial equality taught in your schools?
What statistics do you base them on? Or do you just believe it because it's always been taught to you?

I'm interested and want to know how racial equality is taught in the USA.
How it became mainstream in American Millenials, and what statistics or argument it is based on.

Well, I'm not really sure what this has to do with the stuff I said earlier, but I might as well answer your questions since you're asking. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you're asking about "statistics" though.

I can only really speak from vague and likely incomplete memories of personal experience here from the pretty liberal New England, but in elementary school I remember learning about Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks and the basic history of segregation to a level that you can expect a 2nd grader to understand. Their histories, what they stood for and fought for, why it was important, basic stuff like that. I even remember everyone having to learn this song in music class, which should give a pretty decent idea of how this stuff was taught (though even compared to the rest of the curriculum the song was kinda dumbed down).

8th grade history also had a unit on the Civil War, of course racism was definitely a relevant part of that unit. The primary focus was definitely on the history, though, at that point knowing "racism is bad" was definitely a given for everyone. Maybe it had nothing to do with the way the class was taught and was just my biases showing through, but I do kind of remember learning about it from a perspective of "the union is the good guys and the confederacy was the bad guys although Robert E. Lee was an okay dude".

When you talk about white supremacy being taught through things such as WWII and colonial history, it's pretty surreal to imagine that. History classes about stuff like the Holocaust were pretty obviously just universally about how terrible they were (although for the most part they were absolutely still taught in an objective "these are the facts of what happened memorize them for the test" kind of way). I remember a lot of formal classroom debates about all kinds of different topics (worker unions, old Chinese philosophies, the ethics of nuclear war, you name it), but one that seems relevant was about Christopher Columbus and whether or not he was a total prick for all the shit he did. People tend to not be big fans of him.

I went to a phenomenally liberal highschool that would, multiple times a year, have events involving speakers to talk about issues involving race or LGBTQ+ or whatever else (including the Day of Dialogue and the Day of Silence), but at this point all of this stuff seemed completely normal (and still does), it was just long past the point where the idea of racial and LGBTQ+ equality was just a fact of life. I actually remember an old school newspaper article about Republicans in the school feeling like they were something of a demonized minority among the rest of the students, though maybe they were just economically conservative since I have a hard time imagining socially conservative people running around that place.

I'm a pretty strong believer that a person's upbringing and the people they're around will pretty much determine their political/social/economic stances more than anything, but unfortunately I don't really remember anything specific about this beyond my 2nd grade class learning who Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks were. Everything I listed after that feels like it was late enough to be a symptom, not a cause, though hopefully it still gave some perspective on American curriculums and how the topic of racism may be involved.

 

[Divine Retribution]

that is possibly the most twisted logic of an article that I've ever read, unsurprising from an orthodox jew

Can't tell if shitposting or literal antisemitism?

I mean, in the end I really don't care as long as we're speaking about Judaism as a religion and not an ethnic group, but when you're beating people over the head with a stick labeled "Islamophobia" in one hand and taking potshots at orthodox Jews with the other, it kind of sends mixed signals.

 

[Legitimate Username]

Can't tell if shitposting or literal antisemitism?

I mean, in the end I really don't care as long as we're speaking about Judaism as a religion and not an ethnic group, but when you're beating people over the head with a stick labeled "Islamophobia" in one hand and taking potshots at orthodox Jews with the other, it kind of sends mixed signals.

I can tell you from a (Reform) Jewish perspective and from personal experience that Orthodox Jews are some of the least tolerant people out there. The Torah, like the Bible, has got some pretty messed-up and outdated stuff in there, and the extremists of either religion who refuse to take it at anything other than face value are definitely going to have some fucked-up political opinions. The article that Bughouse linked does a pretty good job of showing some of this. To be unsurprised that a religious extremist has discriminatory opinions that stem from his religion doesn't really strike me as antisemitic.

 

[Divine Retribution]

I can tell you from a (Reform) Jewish perspective and from personal experience that Orthodox Jews are some of the least tolerant people out there. The Torah, like the Bible, has got some pretty messed-up and outdated stuff in there, and the extremists of either religion who refuse to take it at anything other than face value are definitely going to have some fucked-up political opinions. The article that Bughouse linked does a pretty good job of showing some of this. To be unsurprised that a religious extremist has discriminatory opinions that stem from his religion doesn't really strike me as antisemitic.

I agree with you, but then can we finally accept that criticizing radical sectors of Islam is not necessarily "Islamophobia"? Doesn't seem like a productive double standard to me.

 

[brightobject]

I think leveling legitimate criticisms of strict adherence with orthodox Sharia law is different from banning immigration of Muslims into the country.

 

[Obliviate]

because clinton supporters would never commit any act of violence.

Pointing the finger at someone else doesn't actually prove your party's innocence. And contrary to crimes committed by Clinton supporters, crimes done by Trump supporters are a) more frequent (don't have numbers right now but you'd notice that if you watch news) and b) legitimized by Trump himself. While he did not explicitly command his people to attack social minorities it's the actions/speeches of him which advocate this type of disgusting behavior.
I honestly can't believe how people still fall for right-wing populism (not only in the US but also France, Austria and Germany partly ...), it seems like the human race will never learn of historical faults.

 

[Divine Retribution]

I think leveling legitimate criticisms of strict adherence with orthodox Sharia law is different from banning immigration of Muslims into the country.

The Muslim immigration thing is completely ridiculous and literally impossible to enforce even if it somehow ever did happen. How the hell do you prove someone is or isn't a Muslim? The only way to ban Muslims from entering the country is to substitute Muslim for Arab, but not only would that be blatantly unconstitutional as well, even that wouldn't totally work.

On the other hand I do support some kind of immigration control. I know I'm about to be blasted from both sides of the political fence here (from the left for being supposedly anti-immigration or something and from the right for not being a hardass when it comes to undocumented immigrants), but I would support some basic measures to control illegal immigration. I don't regard it as a particularly huge problem, but it concerns a lot of people and I think it's a fairly reasonable concern.

On the other hand (and here's where the right is about to take aim at me) I also support full amnesty for all undocumented immigrants currently residing in the united states so long as they cannot be tied to a violent crime.

 

[Hogg]

I've been largely avoiding this thread lately because the arguments have gotten so scattershot and varied that I think getting bogged down on any of them would just serve to derail this thread further. I have strong feelings about all of this, and I think that there have been a ton of really specious arguments from all sides, but I don't really want to drill down on any of that. Just want to put my thoughts here.

With any candidate, you obviously have to take the good with the bad. There is no such thing as a perfect candidate, and there never will be. If you spend all your time waiting for the candidate that perfectly meets your ideals, you will be waiting a long, long time.

But the flipside of that coin is that you bear responsibility for those that you vote for. Saying "no candidate is perfect" doesn't absolve you of all responsibility when the imperfect candidate that you voted for does something that you don't agree with.

Listen, I had a lot of problems with Hillary Clinton. While there were several things I liked about her, there were others that bothered me. She was definitely a hawk, and I fully expected that if she had become president, some things I have really major issues with would have come to pass. I believe that the use of the drone program and the extra-judicial killings that result from it would probably have increased under her tenure. I believe that she probably would have escalated military conflict in Syria. On the economic and social support side of things she fared better, but I still fundamentally disagree with her approach to health care, which I believe is a band-aid on the issue but will never fully address the basic problems with our current healthcare system (rising costs of healthcare services due to a wide market of "buyers" that compete rather than coordinate, continuing to tie healthcare to employment, etc. - don't get me wrong, I think that the Affordable Care Act is an improvement over our previous system, and my family has personally benefited from it in really direct ways, but I still believe that it failed to address the core problems with the current system, and thus would always be bloated and incomplete).

When I voted for Hillary Clinton, I took ownership of those problems as much as I took ownership of the things about her that I supported. Voting is a civic responsibility, and like any responsibility, how you fulfill it has consequences. I knew full well going into the voting booth who I was voting for, and even though I believe I made the right decision in placing my vote, it doesn't change the fact that my vote would have elected someone who supported some things that I am pretty fundamentally opposed to. I still cast that vote, because in the end, I decided that even these flaws were acceptable costs compared to the alternative. Voting for an unrealistic candidate that more perfectly aligned with my views would accomplish nothing beyond making me feel better about myself, and when compared to the alternative major candidate, I found those issues an acceptable cost.

Donald Trump is a man who has made no bones about who he is. He is a man with a history of open racism, bigotry, homophobia and misogyny. He ran a campaign full of racist dogwhistles, actively championed prejudiced and unconstitutional policies, and has been the most openly racist major presidential candidate this country has seen since George Wallace. This isn't some hidden secret. This is a pretty basic part of Donald Trump.

Even if you yourself disagree with this aspect of Donald Trump, it's there, and if you voted for him, you voted for this too. Perhaps you did so in the same spirit that I voted for Hillary Clinton, believing that it was an acceptable cost when compared with the alternative. Maybe you did this because you believe that Hillary's flaws were of even greater concern, or because you live in a position of privilege where the active and ugly bigotry does not directly impact your life, or because you believe that the policies of his that you support will have such a beneficial impact on the country that you believe it is all worthwhile. I don't know. Only you do. But if you voted for Donald Trump, you got the good with the bad, and you bear some responsibility for that.

So this is what I ask of anyone who has voted for Donald Trump knowing that he is a flawed candidate: hold him responsible. When I cast my vote for Hillary Clinton, I did so expecting to challenge her on every issue I found problematic. I fully planned to fight against unnecessary military intervention, to oppose the use of the drone program, to push for a new direction as far as healthcare. I intended to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for those areas where I believe she had room to improve. There are a lot of ways you can do this, from making phone calls and writing letters to your legislators (who hold the President in check), to directly organizing with others that believe the same as you do. I did this under Barack Obama. I planned to do all of this under Hillary Clinton as well, if she was elected President.

I am asking anyone here who voted for Donald Trump to do the same. If you don't support racist or homophobic or misogynistic policies, fight him on it, even if you voted for it. Don't just shrug and say, "Welp, that's unfortunate, but I still think he was the better candidate." I'll still fight for what I believe in too, but frankly, Donald Trump probably cares a lot more about you than he does about me. If you voted for Donald Trump, you bear some responsibility for the decisions he makes - so if he makes a decision you disagree with, you bear that same responsibility to challenge it.

Thanks, y'all. No matter what happens, I expect it will be an interesting several years.

 

[PK Gaming]

because clinton supporters would never commit any act of violence.

Are you seriously going with the both sides are bad option select.

Because if you're going to equate the surge of unmitigated bigotry and violence from Trump supporters to what Clinton supporters are doing, then that makes you a genuinely terrible human being. I mean who knows, maybe you're not completely terrible in other contexts, but based on what I've seen (which is literally just this), you're garbage.

 

[Divine Retribution]

whats the point of this post if you provide no actual evidence to validate anything you say. youre literally contradicting yourself by pointing fingers right back at trump supporters.

trump crimes are wayy more frequent bro Youd know if you even took a peak at all the liberal media (kek cant be arsed to find stats tho cuz im afraid it aint true) PLUS DUDE while he never actually said to commit crimes, he BASICALLY said to commit crimes LIke lmfao how can you not interpret his words this way even if it wasnt. here me out the KKK supports trump (as they usually do support the republican party) therefore trump is a bitch ass racist. maybe he didnt explicitly accept their endorsement but like UHH They support him therefore he cant be good. Its not like theres only so many options and they have to support one anyway. It is most certainly trumps faualt they supporttt him like uhyeah RACIST mhemrm. trump a racist maybe he never actually said to commit crimes but he a racist so you know so yeah obviously he meant that like uhhh yeah.

#ImStillWithHer #Hillary #MakeAmericaBrownAgain



he never explicitly said nor implied that. but he a trump supporter so KEK its obvious thats what he meant racist and such and such and such and such and such. narmean Like uhrerm. NARMEAN

I can't even tell if I agree with you or not because this is the absolute worst attempt at satire I have ever seen in my life. I'll get back to you when I've figured out exactly what point you're trying to make. If I can figure out exactly what point you're trying to make.

 

[PK Gaming]

he never explicitly said nor implied that. but he a trump supporter so KEK its obvious thats what he meant racist and such and such and such and such and such. narmean Like uhrerm. NARMEAN

Dude, forgot being a trump supporter

If your response to a post covering hate crimes is a basic as fuck "because clinton supporters never do that, amirite lol" one liner then you straight up have 0 empathy

 

[Water Drone]

Are you seriously going with the both sides are bad option select.

Because if you're going to equate the surge of unmitigated bigotry and violence from Trump supporters to what Clinton supporters are doing, then that makes you a genuinely terrible human being. I mean who knows, maybe you're not completely terrible in other contexts, but based on what I've seen (which is literally just this), you're garbage.

also just for an actual response to this im sure none of these are anything like this especially the facebook one yeah sure dude sure no WAY is that fake with no video evidence it must be true

 

[ceraa]

Are you seriously going with the both sides are bad option select.

Because if you're going to equate the surge of unmitigated bigotry and violence from Trump supporters to what Clinton supporters are doing, then that makes you a genuinely terrible human being.

because 10 words in a smogon thread make me a terrible human being.

 

[Bedschibaer]

Pointing the finger at someone else doesn't actually prove your party's innocence.

That's not at all what he was doing or imo trying to prove. The problem is labelling a whole group of voters as something based on a few incidents, which you can also do with hillary voters if you want to. The problem is radicalisation and polarisation during the election.

I honestly can't believe how people still fall for right-wing populism (not only in the US but also France, Austria and Germany partly ...), it seems like the human race will never learn of historical faults.

It's cute that you think the average voter actually has any idea of politics. In Austria we've had the right wing party in the parliament already and nobody got genocided. The party did fucknothing though and was even more corrupt than our usual parliament but nobody remembers or even realized to begin with. Populists win because people don't care about policy, they care about image, promises and "things that effect them", dumb phrases everyone understands. Populists also happen to be the ones that profit from fear, crisis and any sort of problem (unless they caused it). Oh and social media, at least here the right wing party profits the most from that and afaik european new right greatly focuses on mobilizing via that. And that ends up being pretty effective. I see the problem with moderate parties just falling back in all of those regards.

 

[macle]

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-b...nist-ben-carson-americas-secretary-education/

amazing but i guess better than surgeon general? or does trump have some anti vax anti gmo person for that spot

 

[Deck Knight]

First Impression

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

My favorite gems from this thread are the "voters are stupid" and "voters are racist" lines.

This mindset worked so well influencing the vote from the echo chamber the last 18 months. It worked so well even Donald Trump could get elected running as the alternative to it. Doubling down the next four years will surely be more effective. The left will learn nothing from this because it is incapable of learning from it. Your political opponents aren't evil incarnate, and neither is the candidate for whom they voted.

The reason I barely engage Cong anymore, and didn't this election cycle is because while Obama has been president there has been no empathy for people with different values. Liberals seem to have lost their ability to empathize with the people they Otherize. In the echo chamber, if people have different values it's because they are ignorant or must be "woke" by whatever dear professor said. The same dear professor who over the last few days has been cancelling classes because university is basically daycare for overgrown infants rather than an intellectual space to challenge the mind.

Donald Trump won primarily because of the awfulness of Hillary Clinton, propped up by a media that made her appear inevitable and deliberately squashed her rival in the primary, Bernie Sanders. Dem turnout was way, way down overall because the mass media smoothed her path and declared her a lock from Day 1, and the criminally compromised disaster zone that is Hillary Clinton does not inspire people otherwise. The media created a false self-reinforcing bubble where Hillary was inevitable, assuming Trump could never match the turnout of Romney given nonstop negative press. Dem voters decided that since the election was already on lock, their objections to Hillary meant staying home would not affect the election.

But Donald Trump did match Romney's turnout (roughly), and did so in states that mattered more for the electoral college.

Donald Trump got turnout because it's not racist to point out illegal aliens pouring over the southern border are slaughtering people in the streets and that needs to stop being dismissed as xenophobia just for talking about it.

Donald Trump got turnout because as Michael Moore said, huge swaths of the country have been waiting for a candidate who will at least recognize and respect their concerns. Moore painted this as a chance to say "fuck you" to the elites and urged against voting that way, but he was prescient in that regard. Rust Belt states are tired of hearing from coastal elites that their jobs are never coming back and they need to be re-educated to serve as janitors in government subsidized solar panel factories.

Donald Trump got turnout because it's exceedingly obvious that unvettable people who are "refugees" from a country and a culture that throws homosexuals from rooftops because of religious zeal are not a good fit for relocation in the United States. Trump almost flipped Minnesota over this and related working class issues.

Donald Trump got turnout because when you base your entire political existence on critical theory racialism and blame all problems on white people - and have a candidate as tin-eared and unrelatable as Hillary Clinton attacking voters instead of restricting her attacks to Trump himself - then white working class people feel free to vote as a more homogeneous group. Fair warning: It is nearly impossible to win an American election under the electoral college system when you can't even hit 40% of the "white vote."

But it gets better, because you see Trump actually improved numbers with blacks and latinos over Mitt Romney. Unlike Mr. "47 Percent," Trump made deliberate appeals to fix the inner cities in every late-campaign rally appearance. The ads themselves were a pretty weak "what do you have to lose" message, but it was still engagement, and honestly until Trump got into power there was no way to envision that against wall to wall Hillary Super PACs (CNN, NBC, ABC) portraying Trump as a racist, hater of women, etc.

I do not know how Trump will fare as President, but if he keeps even half his promises I will be satisfied. Even if he sucks it was still worth it to have one night to rub in the faces (for four years, even) of people whose idea of persuasion is calling everyone with differing opinions or values a racist sexist homophobe who will soon die off and be replaced by their much more moral successors with Gender Studies degrees - the kind of people so rugged and tough-minded they need a test cancelled because their preferred candidate lost an election.

The people whining and rioting now deserve a President Trump more than anyone else.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Well, I'm not really sure what this has to do with the stuff I said earlier, but I m,ight as well answer your questions since you're asking. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you're asking about "statistics" though.

I can only really speak from vague and likely incomplete memories of personal experience here from the pretty liberal New England, but in elementary school I remember learning about Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks and the basic history of segregation to a level that you can expect a 2nd grader to understand. Their histories, what they stood for and fought for, why it was important, basic stuff like that. I even remember everyone having to learn this song in music class, which should give a pretty decent idea of how this stuff was taught (though even compared to the rest of the curriculum the song was kinda dumbed down).

8th grade history also had a unit on the Civil War, of course racism was definitely a relevant part of that unit. The primary focus was definitely on the history, though, at that point knowing "racism is bad" was definitely a given for everyone. Maybe it had nothing to do with the way the class was taught and was just my biases showing through, but I do kind of remember learning about it from a perspective of "the union is the good guys and the confederacy was the bad guys although Robert E. Lee was an okay dude".

When you talk about white supremacy being taught through things such as WWII and colonial history, it's pretty surreal to imagine that. History classes about stuff like the Holocaust were pretty obviously just universally about how terrible they were (although for the most part they were absolutely still taught in an objective "these are the facts of what happened memorize them for the test" kind of way). I remember a lot of formal classroom debates about all kinds of different topics (worker unions, old Chinese philosophies, the ethics of nuclear war, you name it), but one that seems relevant was about Christopher Columbus and whether or not he was a total prick for all the shit he did. People tend to not be big fans of him.

I went to a phenomenally liberal highschool that would, multiple times a year, have events involving speakers to talk about issues involving race or LGBTQ+ or whatever else (including the Day of Dialogue and the Day of Silence), but at this point all of this stuff seemed completely normal (and still does), it was just long past the point where the idea of racial and LGBTQ+ equality was just a fact of life. I actually remember an old school newspaper article about Republicans in the school feeling like they were something of a demonized minority among the rest of the students, though maybe they were just economically conservative since I have a hard time imagining socially conservative people running around that place.

I'm a pretty strong believer that a person's upbringing and the people they're around will pretty much determine their political/social/economic stances more than anything, but unfortunately I don't really remember anything specific about this beyond my 2nd grade class learning who Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks were. Everything I listed after that feels like it was late enough to be a symptom, not a cause, though hopefully it still gave some perspective on American curriculums and how the topic of racism may be involved.

There are many properly reviewed science papers that find out that white people have much higher iq than blacks and hispanics, together with other minor anthropological differences.

On the other hand, people who say either that all races are the same, or that race is a social construct, are either politicians or psychologists. Ie: Not anthropologists.

But that said, it is blatantly obvious that the most advanced countries are white countries, and that white countries have successfully colonized many other countries.
White people are also still responsible for most technological inventions nowadays.
That's why I want to know how you can actually prove that white people are not superior.

As a major in biology, I don't want to see politician's claims regarding to race.
I want real peer reviewed science papers.
And so far, the people who think that all races are the same, are incapable of presenting me with any of these.

The reason I'm so desperate at proving white people superior is because I believe that morals or politics shouldn't be used to silence proper science studies.

 

[PK Gaming]

also just for an actual response to this im sure none of these are anything like this especially the facebook one yeah sure dude sure no WAY is that fake with no video evidence it must be true

You can reply with all the smug sarcasm you want, but you're delusional if you think a couple of fake stories somehow change the narrative here. Trying to downplay the violent crimes that minorities are experiencing by saying that Clinton supporters are doing the same is a blatant false equivalence. You talk about evidence, but how is any of this not good enough?

 

[Taistelu]

There are many properly reviewed science papers that find out that white people have much higher iq than blacks and hispanics

What...can you link me please?

 

[Divine Retribution]

There are many properly reviewed science papers that find out that white people have much higher iq than blacks and hispanics

And yet here we have the issue with papers like this; they're averages. Simply being white doesn't automatically give you a higher IQ than being black or Hispanic. I'm Hispanic and I've tested between the 99.2% and 99.7% percentile. Oh, and I'm also an idiot so I don't put much stock in IQ tests. Well, that and they're fundamentally flawed in my (admittedly layman's) opinion, but that's a discussion for a whole different thread.

I also don't think you can put forth an argument to indicate that one race is somehow better or worse than the others without it inevitably leading down the slipperly slope to... Well... Eugenics. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't support genocide, so at the end of the day it's kind of a pointless topic to even discuss.

 

[atomicllamas]

I'm Puerto Rican and gay, and the only hatred and vitriol I've gotten since Trump has announced has been from the tolerant left. I'll keep an eye out for the nazis and white supremacists, but yes I will enjoy this America. I'll eat my words once Trump causes a nuclear war or overturns gay marriage or something.

Okay, I'm calling this out. First, just cause you are gay and Puerto Rican, does not mean you aren't capable of being racist / sexist / whatever. Secondly, what has the "tolerant left" done that was full of hatred and vitriol to you? Did they call you a racist?

Story time. During the Ferguson incident, several people came into the scholastic room and spammed shit like "LOL CHIMP OUT" and "stupid N*ggers" and a room driver turned it into a serious discussion where he mentioned white privilege. You then reported the room driver for being racist against white people. So maybe if people are saying you are racist, its because you are the type of person that in a room of people spamming the N word you decided to report the person who mentioned white privilege for being racist against white people, in other words a disgusting racist. (this story was confirmed for my by a ps mod heavily involved in scholastic as well as someone who was upper staff at the time)

If you want to know what actual hatred and vitriol look like, read this. This hits really close to home for me because the woman this happened to is a good friend of someone I am decent friends with, on the campus of the University I went to, probably the most liberal area of a blue state. A group of Trump supporters harassing and assaulting a woman because of the color of her skin is what actual hatred and vitriol looks like, not someone calling you racist when, news flash, you kind of are. Oh, by the way, the cops showing up and handcuffing the minority woman walking by herself because the group of white men that just harassed her told the police she attacked them is the perfect example of white privilege that is apparently racist for me to even mention. But yeah it was definitely a logical conclusion by the police to assume that a lone woman with no criminal background decided to attack a group of men for shits and giggles.

You are exactly the type of person that Trump supporters are claiming doesn't represent them, so maybe do them a favor and stop posting.

 

[Bughouse]

Can't tell if shitposting or literal antisemitism?

I mean, in the end I really don't care as long as we're speaking about Judaism as a religion and not an ethnic group, but when you're beating people over the head with a stick labeled "Islamophobia" in one hand and taking potshots at orthodox Jews with the other, it kind of sends mixed signals.

I'm Jewish, you idiot

 

[Obliviate]

whats the point of this post if you provide no actual evidence to validate anything you say. youre literally contradicting yourself by pointing fingers right back at trump supporters.

trump crimes are wayy more frequent bro Youd know if you even took a peak at all the liberal media (kek cant be arsed to find stats tho cuz im afraid it aint true) PLUS DUDE while he never actually said to commit crimes, he BASICALLY said to commit crimes LIke lmfao how can you not interpret his words this way even if it wasnt. here me out the KKK supports trump (as they usually do support the republican party) therefore trump is a bitch ass racist. maybe he didnt explicitly accept their endorsement but like UHH They support him therefore he cant be good. Its not like theres only so many options and they have to support one anyway. It is most certainly trumps faualt they supporttt him like uhyeah RACIST mhemrm. trump a racist maybe he never actually said to commit crimes but he a racist so you know so yeah obviously he meant that like uhhh yeah.

#ImStillWithHer #Hillary #MakeAmericaBrownAgain



he never explicitly said nor implied that. but he a trump supporter so KEK its obvious thats what he meant racist and such and such and such and such and such. narmean Like uhrerm. NARMEAN

Actually I had the impression that providing evidence was not necessary since I'd only repeat what people have been writing the last 90 pages. You literally put me in a lose-lose situation by claiming the 'liberal media' only reports about anti-Trump-stuff and then you want me to prove the frequency of crimes committed by Trump supporters? (fwiw I was talking about my own personal perception after having followed news, I don't think there are stats about crime frequency but let me know if there are any).
Maybe I was unclear in my wording but what I actually meant was that there is always subtext behind what he says and you don't even have to interpret much to understand that he is in fact a racist, xenophobic etc. Of course he doesn't literally say he hates social minorities but what effect does it have when he says that he wants to build a wall on the border of Mexico? Why do you think he is not popular among social minorities?--His supporters get the impression that it is okay to feel supreme because of their political party, their skin color or whatever (example).