There is nothing wrong with liberalism. Most if not all highly intelligent persons are liberal by values for example Elon Musk, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Mark Zuckerberg, Neil DeGrasse Tyson etc.
American political system is quite odd when liberals actually mean leftists and cultural marxist's and right wingers are defined conservatives.
Classical liberalism and fiscal conservatvism (marketliberalism) is the winners choice. Everyone should be allowed to live as they please as long as they are not limiting that very right for others. Add to that we should be able to live in a marketliberal society. Latter meaning less regulations, taxes and passivating factors such as the welfare system that does not inspire people to look for a job.
The premise of this video doesn't get much deeper than that. If you want to explain to you what Cultural Marxism is, I'd be glad to, but if you want me to walk you through this video to help you gain some sort of understanding, I don't think so.
There is nothing wrong with liberalism. Most if not all highly intelligent persons are liberal by values for example Elon Musk, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Mark Zuckerberg, Neil DeGrasse Tyson etc.
American political system is quite odd when liberals actually mean leftists and cultural marxist's and right wingers are defined conservatives.
Classical liberalism and fiscal conservatvism (marketliberalism) is the winners choice. Everyone should be allowed to live as they please as long as they are not limiting that very right for others. Add to that we should be able to live in a marketliberal society. Latter meaning less regulations, taxes and passivating factors such as the welfare system that does not inspire people to look for a job.
I agree on classsic liberalism, but the video speaks on modern day liberalism, which differs in many ways. Where the classical liberal carries political views to a moderate libertarian, the modern liberal or progressive believe in civil and social justice, racial/gender/cultural equality, and big government (government programs, subsidairies). Where the true liberal believes in freedom of opportunity, the progressive believes in equality of outcome.
This is where the cultural marxism comes into play; progressives believe that all people are equal, and that they transcend gender, racial, and cultural limitations. Of course this is contrary to reality, but the progressive fights to make it reality through state law and legislation. Like communism, they take power from the social "bourgeoisie" and distribute it among the proletariates creating social communism or "Cultural Maxism".
The premise of this video doesn't get much deeper than that. If you want to explain to you what Cultural Marxism is, I'd be glad to, but if you want me to walk you through this video to help you gain some sort of understanding, I don't think so.
I just want you to go into detail and explain to me how cultural Marxism was at the forefront of this years election and at the top of political discussion among the left for the past 4 years?
I agree on classsic liberalism, but the video speaks on modern day liberalism, which differs in many ways. Where the classical liberal carries political views to a moderate libertarian, the modern liberal or progressive believe in civil and social justice, racial/gender/cultural equality, and big government (government programs, subsidairies). Where the true liberal believes in freedom of opportunity, the progressive believes in equality of outcome.
This is where the cultural marxism comes into play; progressives believe that all people are equal, and that they transcend gender, racial, and cultural limitations. Of course this is contrary to reality, but the progressive fights to make it reality through state law and legislation. Like communism, they take power from the social "bourgeoisie" and distribute it among the proletariates creating social communism or "Cultural Maxism".
I agree on classsic liberalism, but the video speaks on modern day liberalism, which differs in many ways. Where the classical liberal carries political views to a moderate libertarian, the modern liberal or progressive believe in civil and social justice, racial/gender/cultural equality, and big government (government programs, subsidairies). Where the true liberal believes in freedom of opportunity, the progressive believes in equality of outcome.
This is where the cultural marxism comes into play; progressives believe that all people are equal, and that they transcend gender, racial, and cultural limitations. Of course this is contrary to reality, but the progressive fights to make it reality through state law and legislation. Like communism, they take power from the social "bourgeoisie" and distribute it among the proletariates creating social communism or "Cultural Maxism".
Yeah I know. That's why I said the political system of the US is a bit odd as it implies liberal = hysterical naive leftist who doesn't want to allow any other opinions than his or her own.
True liberals are far from the people you refer as liberals in the US.
Also what bothers me is that the conservative religious zealots have tarnished the consept of right wing. People can have liberal values and still be considered to belong to the right wing, because the right side believes in economic freedom whereas the leftist are basically more closer to socialists.
I just want you to go into detail and explain to me how cultural Marxism was at the forefront of this years election and at the top of political discussion among the left for the past 4 years?
Lets start off with the election. Most people would agree that political correctness and rhetoric played a major role, if not the most crucial role in this years election. The media and the left criticized Trump whenever he spoke out of term, used politically incorrect terminology, or said anything considered offensive. This was also the strategy used by Hillary Clinton's campaign, which was to target Trump's rhetoric over his policies; we can see the result of this in the drama based, "he-said she-said" bickering during all their debates. We are living in a PC society, where people are often punished for saying certain things, having certain ideas, or make certain jokes. This punishment can be public ridicule, being outcasted from society as a racist, bigot, etc., or even losing your job destroying your livelihhood, which can and has happened. So of course Hillary Clinton believed PC society would have worked in her favor in demonizing Trump, but instead, it backfired. Now that I've established where PC influenced this election, it's talk about where political correctness spawned from.
Not to delve into to much history, but during the early 1900s, Russia, most of eastern Europe, and China were transitioning to Communism. Where eastern Europe adopted Communism, Western Europe and western society failed to do so, prefering a capitalist society. Sometime after WWI, communist scholars and philosophers deliberated on why Communism did not spread to the rest of the western world, and they came to the conclusion that in order for political marxism to work in the west, they must first deconstruct western society through social marxist theory they developed, thus was born political correctness in academia. If you want more specifics on the history I recommend doing the research, very interesting stuff.
In this academia, the marxist scholars intregated marxist theory on how the working class was oppressed by the bourgeoisie, blended it with Fruedian theory on psychology, and taught that all of society was psychologically and socially oppressed under western culture and capitalism.*It is from this social marxist theory that gender, and identity politics spawned from, and later race and social studies courses on oppression that we see offered in todays universitys and colleges.
It is then, from these studies, we see the creation of social movements like 3rd wave Feminism, which fights against the "oppresive" patriarchy and pushes for a communistic, equality of outcome between the genders when it comes to positions given in the work place, in academia referring to the gender inbalance in STEM fields, in pay wages, and various other things. We see the creation of several other social justice movements; Black Lives Matter, with the intentions of deconstructing "oppresive", systematic racism in the government, the LGBTQ movement, with the intentions of gaining acknowledgement of their gender identities and pronouns from the "oppressive", cis-gendered society, etc. In all these movements, they act under the idea that they are oppressed by society, similarly to the proletariat in marxist theory, and in order to achieve their perceived equality, they must make it mandate through law and legislation, i.e. cultural marxism. In doing this, they destroy the social dichotomy on which capitialism is built on, change our dialogue, which later changes society, creating a false equality, manufactured off backs of the "social bourgeoisie". This all ties back to modern day liberals and this election.
Again, this years election was not a debate of policy and merit, but of Cultural marxism, and rhetoric. On the topic of Mass muslim immigration, modern liberals being cultural marxist, believe in multiculturalism and the idea that Islamic culture and western culture should be seen as equal. Those, like Trump, who oppose mass Muslim immigration are seen as xenophobes, Even though being opposed to mass immigration carries merit on the basis of national security, and economic stability with our infustruture, which our capitalist society relies on. On the topic of Border immigration, modern liberals being cultural marxists, believe anyone who opposes illegal immigration is a racist, even though being opposed carries the same weight as Mass immigration from the middle east. This weaponizing of political correctness has caused fear among the American people and believed that Donald Trump's politically incorrect and nonpartisan, populist behavior could create shift in political discussion, moving away from identity politics and back to actual issues.
I can continue, but I think this reply is long enough, hopefully you get the jist of how cultural marxism played a huge role in this years election and in society as a whole.
Lets start off with the election. Most people would agree that political correctness and rhetoric played a major role, if not the most crucial role in this years election. The media and the left criticized Trump whenever he spoke out of term, used politically incorrect terminology, or said anything considered offensive. This was also the strategy used by Hillary Clinton's campaign, which was to target Trump's rhetoric over his policies; we can see the result of this in the drama based, "he-said she-said" bickering during all their debates. We are living in a PC society, where people are often punished for saying certain things, having certain ideas, or make certain jokes. This punishment can be public ridicule, being outcasted from society as a racist, bigot, etc., or even losing your job destroying your livelihhood, which can and has happened. So of course Hillary Clinton believed PC society would have worked in her favor in demonizing Trump, but instead, it backfired. Now that I've established where PC influenced this election, it's talk about where political correctness spawned from.
Not to delve into to much history, but during the early 1900s, Russia, most of eastern Europe, and China were transitioning to Communism. Where eastern Europe adopted Communism, Western Europe and western society failed to do so, prefering a capitalist society. Sometime after WWI, communist scholars and philosophers deliberated on why Communism did not spread to the rest of the western world, and they came to the conclusion that in order for political marxism to work in the west, they must first deconstruct western society through social marxist theory they developed, thus was born political correctness in academia. If you want more specifics on the history I recommend doing the research, very interesting stuff.
In this academia, the marxist scholars intregated marxist theory on how the working class was oppressed by the bourgeoisie, blended it with Fruedian theory on psychology, and taught that all of society was psychologically and socially oppressed under western culture and capitalism.*It is from this social marxist theory that gender, and identity politics spawned from, and later race and social studies courses on oppression that we see offered in todays universitys and colleges.
It is then, from these studies, we see the creation of social movements like 3rd wave Feminism, which fights against the "oppresive" patriarchy and pushes for a communistic, equality of outcome between the genders when it comes to positions given in the work place, in academia referring to the gender inbalance in STEM fields, in pay wages, and various other things. We see the creation of several other social justice movements; Black Lives Matter, with the intentions of deconstructing "oppresive", systematic racism in the government, the LGBTQ movement, with the intentions of gaining acknowledgement of their gender identities and pronouns from the "oppressive", cis-gendered society, etc. In all these movements, they act under the idea that they are oppressed by society, similarly to the proletariat in marxist theory, and in order to achieve their perceived equality, they must make it mandate through law and legislation, i.e. cultural marxism. In doing this, they destroy the social dichotomy on which capitialism is built on, change our dialogue, which later changes society, creating a false equality, manufactured off backs of the "social bourgeoisie". This all ties back to modern day liberals and this election.
Again, this years election was not a debate of policy and merit, but of Cultural marxism, and rhetoric. On the topic of Mass muslim immigration, modern liberals being cultural marxist, believe in multiculturalism and the idea that Islamic culture and western culture should be seen as equal. Those, like Trump, who oppose mass Muslim immigration are seen as xenophobes, Even though being opposed to mass immigration carries merit on the basis of national security, and economic stability with our infustruture, which our capitalist society relies on. On the topic of Border immigration, modern liberals being cultural marxists, believe anyone who opposes illegal immigration is a racist, even though being opposed carries the same weight as Mass immigration from the middle east. This weaponizing of political correctness has caused fear among the American people and believed that Donald Trump's politically incorrect and nonpartisan, populist behavior could create shift in political discussion, moving away from identity politics and back to actual issues.
I can continue, but I think this reply is long enough, hopefully you get the jist of how cultural marxism played a huge role in this years election and in society as a whole.
Ok, well first off, I don't consider Hillary a liberal. She's more conservative if anything. I just find it funny how people on the right always attribute "liberal" to Hillary and the establishment. When it comes to social issues, sure, they are somewhat liberal, but virtually every other issue, it mostly resembles conservative ideals.
PC culture exists in all political spectrums. Even you just said "punishment comes in the form of public ridicule." So you want people to stop using certain words and certain jokes about your own beliefs. That's called being politically correct, go figure.
Trump sues people for saying things about him he did not like, like Bill Maher for making a joke about him. That's called being PC.
Except that the U.S. has a deep rooted history with racism that is still reverberated through society to this day. Jim Crow laws have only ended about 50 years ago, and now we have the "war against drugs" which is considered to be the New Jim Crow. The fact that you deny there is a disparity in the lives of minorities and whites is ignorant of the reality.
As for women, we are still debating the issue of abortion and even going as far as trying to repeal it and punish women for getting one. How's that equal? Is there a similar debate among men that I don't know about?
That's because what Trump is doing is scapegoating real issues to race. He blames China for a bunch of things. He blames Mexicans for job loss. He blames Muslims for violence. He blames blacks for civil disobedience. And after all of that rhetoric we see a spike in hate crimes.
All of his issues revolved around race. Building a wall, enabling stop and frisk, banning muslims, etc. So yeah, that is considered xenophobia, especially when people ignore the facts and just roll with the race-blame.
We only let it in ten thousand refugees. That's hardly a bump in the overall population and people were making it seem like it was the coming apocalypse.
You're making too many assumptions on what liberals think. The illegal immigrants currently residing in this country are posing no harm nor threat and if they are, then yes those people should be deported. But the ones who already settled and are just trying to make living have no reason to be deported. That's where the issue resides.
Deporting all illegal immigrants is senseless and just unethical. That doesn't mean that illegal immigration shouldn't be regulated. But again, people ignore the facts and illegal immigration is so low that it shouldn't even be anywhere near the top of the list of issues.
They also ignore the fact that Obama has a record high for deporting illegal immigrants, even more than Bush. But wait, isn't he a called a liberal? Huh.
Asking people to not discriminate against gender or race is not being a Marxist. If you think it is, then there is something deliberately wrong with you.
Being able to understand that minorities and women face issues that are unique to them is not being Marxist.
The fact that you're complaining about even raising those issues so that those people can live better lives says a lot about you and your ilk.
And if you're upset that you're going to be ridiculed for saying sexist or racist things, then go **** yourself. It shouldn't even something that needs to even be addressed. Just don't be a ****.
If you've listened to the Democratic Primary Debates, it was all about the issues. The general election, I will agree that it was just pointing fingers at each other.
But Bernie Sanders even said that yeah we should have more women and minorities in government, but being a women or a minority is not enough, you have to have the courage to do what's right and the policy to go with it.
So again, this whole notion of Marxism is just a red scare tactic still being used today. You throw around words like Communism, Liberal, Politically Correct, etc. so eagerly that you dismiss any notion that you might be wrong about the way you perceive the issues they represent.
The world isn't black and white, and asking for equal representation is not the same thing as asking for Communism.
Ok, well first off, I don't consider Hillary a liberal. She's more conservative if anything. I just find it funny how people on the right always attribute "liberal" to Hillary and the establishment. When it comes to social issues, sure, they are somewhat liberal, but virtually every other issue, it mostly resembles conservative ideals.
I'm actually left of center on the political spectrum, I just don't believe in cultural Marxism, but I feel like because you believe I align with the right, you will place certain standards and prejudices on me through out your reply. Also, whether you consider Hillary Clinton liberal or not doesn't truly matter. She identifies with the liberal views, her stances on outside of social issues such as natural energy, educational funding, law enforcement and affirmative action, and financial reform would lead you to believe that she's a liberal, but if you have issues where she appears more conservative than liberal that you want to bring to light, please do so.
PC culture exists in all political spectrums. Even you just said "punishment comes in the form of public ridicule." So you want people to stop using certain words and certain jokes about your own beliefs. That's called being politically correct, go figure.
No, that's called being insecure. Trump is a dolt with many flaws, but he's far from PC.
po·lit·i·cal cor·rect·ness
noun
the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
Unless Bill Maher took a shot at Trump's scottish heritage, or made fun of his wife for being an immigrant, Trump was being nothing more than an insecure dolt.
Except that the U.S. has a deep rooted history with racism that is still reverberated through society to this day. Jim Crow laws have only ended about 50 years ago, and now we have the "war against drugs" which is considered to be the New Jim Crow. The fact that you deny there is a disparity in the lives of minorities and whites is ignorant of the reality.
Saying systematic racism does not exist does not equate to denying the existence of issues caused by systematic racism. I, myself am black, and I'm fully aware of the negative effects Jim Crow and the War on Drugs had upon blacks in America. I have the right to be upset about America's past, and I am, but I'm not going sit here and act as if I am still oppressed. It's true I might be set back from the starting line by a few meters from a social and economical stand point, but me *****ing about it and not running the race isn't going to help.
As for women, we are still debating the issue of abortion and even going as far as trying to repeal it and punish women for getting one. How's that equal? Is there a similar debate among men that I don't know about?
I didn't mention anything about abortion in my original comment (pressing ctrl+f), you were the first to do so. But since we're on the topic, I have mixed feelings about abortion. I don't believe women should face corporal punishment for having an abortion, but I don't believe that women should be allowed to have an abortion any time during her pregnancy. Of course, I don't think there should be any law infringed upon women who choose to have an abortion, the government shouldn't have a say in the matter.
That's because what Trump is doing is scapegoating real issues to race. He blames China for a bunch of things. He blames Mexicans for job loss. He blames Muslims for violence. He blames blacks for civil disobedience. And after all of that rhetoric we see a spike in hate crimes
All of his issues revolved around race. Building a wall, enabling stop and frisk, banning muslims, etc. So yeah, that is considered xenophobia, especially when people ignore the facts and just roll with the race-blame.
The issues on mexican immigration, Muslims, and blacks, are a little more gray then guilty vs not guilty, but its true Trump has some weird obsession/grudge, love hate relationship with China.
When it comes to illegal immigrants, statistics from the Center of Immigration studies show that there is enough evidence to claim that illegal immigrant does have a negative impact on u.s. employment for non-skilled workers, of course illegal immigrants are not the cause of ALL job loss, but they've causes a significant amount. The C.I.S. states "The idea that there are jobs American's don't do is simply not supported by the data. Moreover, there is good research showing that immigrants displace natives from the labor market.". So Trump is not wrong in blaming Mexican's for job loss.
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see links
When it comes to Muslims, they were the causes of over 12,000 deaths in 2015 alone. 450 of the 452 suicide bombings in that year alone was caused by Muslim extremist. In countries densely inhabited by Muslims, the rate at which they are in favor for suicide bombing in defense of Islam is extremely high. I can bring up more and more stats, but I believe what I've provide is sufficient enough for Trump to claim that Muslim's are violent. Of course he never said all, but to some, not saying all is to say all, which is never the case.
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see links
Hopefully you can take my word on blacks being the highest common denominator when it comes to crime and civil unrest, and that I won't have to post statistics for that as well. As for the spike in hate crimes, I see a correlation, but no causation. Finding evidence for such a claim can be difficult without running into biased and partisan sources, so I won't accept it as truth until proven other wise.
We only let it in ten thousand refugees. That's hardly a bump in the overall population and people were making it seem like it was the coming apocalypse.
People are looking at what is taking place in the U.K (Brexit), and western European countries such as Germany, see the spike in criminal and terrorist activity, and demand a vetting process be put in place as we accept refugees into the country from now onward. You're also undermining the effects that mass immigration has on national debt, and the economy. Mind you, those are 10,000 human beings that are being housed, fed, and provided tools and finances for integration into the U.S., at the expense of tax payers dollars, so it's a very serious topic.
You're making too many assumptions on what liberals think. The illegal immigrants currently residing in this country are posing no harm nor threat and if they are, then yes those people should be deported. But the ones who already settled and are just trying to make living have no reason to be deported. That's where the issue resides.
Deporting all illegal immigrants is senseless and just unethical. That doesn't mean that illegal immigration shouldn't be regulated. But again, people ignore the facts and illegal immigration is so low that it shouldn't even be anywhere near the top of the list of issues.
You state deporting illegal immigrants seems unethical, but you quickly glaze over the modifier of what makes these immigrants and issue. Whether this was intentional, or unintentional, it confirms my biased against liberals. Claiming the deportation of illegals is unethical is a logical fallacy. I find it unethical to come into a country illegally, while simultaneously cutting in front of hundreds of immigrants who fight for years to come to America through the legal process placed. Whether you believe it's morally wrong to deport them is irrelevant, there are laws put in place for a reason.
They also ignore the fact that Obama has a record high for deporting illegal immigrants, even more than Bush. But wait, isn't he a called a liberal? Huh.
Asking people to not discriminate against gender or race is not being a Marxist. If you think it is, then there is something deliberately wrong with you.
Being able to understand that minorities and women face issues that are unique to them is not being Marxist.
The fact that you're complaining about even raising those issues so that those people can live better lives says a lot about you and your ilk.
As I've stated in my original comment, they are not asking people not to discriminate, they are forcing people to accept them through law and legislation. This is what cultural Marxism is. Jordan Peterson, the person Joe Rogan is interviewing in the video has become popular because of his opposition of the bill C-16, which is an amendment to Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, which states "This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence." as a result of this, something as simple as not referring to someone as their desired pronoun is perceived as a hate crime and can result in corporal punishment. This infringes on several of peoples freedoms and forces people to adopt the pseudoscience indoctrination of a "gender spectrum", and I'm personally against infringing on people's rights. Yes understanding women's issues and minority issues is not Marxist, but pushing for laws that make it so the amount of men in women working at a seniority position at a corporation is split 50/50, and making sure blacks and other minorities are fairly represented in every aspect of society is Marxist.
The liberals I speak of would look at your signature and instead of crediting it for looking badass af, they would question the artist as to why there aren't any minorities or more women in it.
And if you're upset that you're going to be ridiculed for saying sexist or racist things, then go **** yourself. It shouldn't even something that needs to even be addressed. Just don't be a ****.
The problem does not lie on the comment, but it lies with those who determine it's sexist or racist. We live in a society where stating "you have black friends", can be considered racist. I'm against racism, and sexism, and all the forms of negative -isms, but I do have a problem with exclusivity of humor and subject matter. You can take a complete shit on the religion of Christianity, be perfectly fine, but make a joke about Islam, and you have 17 different -isms stapled on to your character. This is a form of Cultural Marxism.
You must be registered for see images
I couldn't imagine the amount of outrage among my household alone, if this video was titled "Dear Black Guys"
If you've listened to the Democratic Primary Debates, it was all about the issues. The general election, I will agree that it was just pointing fingers at each other.
But Bernie Sanders even said that yeah we should have more women and minorities in government, but being a women or a minority is not enough, you have to have the courage to do what's right and the policy to go with it.
I disagree with Sanders, I don't care about the amount of minorities or women we have in government, and he shouldn't either. I believe people who are courageous capable, skilled, and prove to be promising should be appointed to positions in government, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, etc. It's the idea that society must reach a diversity quota that I have a problem with.
So again, this whole notion of Marxism is just a red scare tactic still being used today. You throw around words like Communism, Liberal, Politically Correct, etc. so eagerly that you dismiss any notion that you might be wrong about the way you perceive the issues they represent.
I've provided nearly two paragraphs of history detailing how political correctness and cultural Marxism has a place at the forefront of Liberal discussion, and some how you're still able to claim it's nothing more than a red scare tactic. That is just terrifying. lol
Also, I did not dismiss the idea of being wrong. You've asked a question, I've responded, and in your very first counter argument, you state that I'll "dismiss any notion that you might be wrong about the way you perceive the issues they represent", without giving me a chance to do so. That's not fair at all, if you ask me.
The world isn't black and white, and asking for equal representation is not the same thing as asking for Communism.
Asking for equal representation rather than acquiring equal representation through the means others acquired representation in itself is communism. Asking for equal representation of men and women in STEM fields, when the majority of women major in psychology, medical, and social study, is Marxism. Asking for equal representation of blacks in the film industry when they dominate the music and sports industry, is Marxism.
I agree on classsic liberalism, but the video speaks on modern day liberalism, which differs in many ways. Where the classical liberal carries political views to a moderate libertarian, the modern liberal or progressive believe in civil and social justice, racial/gender/cultural equality, and big government (government programs, subsidairies). Where the true liberal believes in freedom of opportunity, the progressive believes in equality of outcome.
This is where the cultural marxism comes into play; progressives believe that all people are equal, and that they transcend gender, racial, and cultural limitations. Of course this is contrary to reality, but the progressive fights to make it reality through state law and legislation. Like communism, they take power from the social "bourgeoisie" and distribute it among the proletariates creating social communism or "Cultural Maxism".
I'm actually left of center on the political spectrum, I just don't believe in cultural Marxism, but I feel like because you believe I align with the right, you will place certain standards and prejudices on me through out your reply. Also, whether you consider Hillary Clinton liberal or not doesn't truly matter. She identifies with the liberal views, her stances on outside of social issues such as natural energy, educational funding, law enforcement and affirmative action, and financial reform would lead you to believe that she's a liberal, but if you have issues where she appears more conservative than liberal that you want to bring to light, please do so.
I didn't say that, you're putting words in my mouth there. I don't care what people think or say about my beliefs, I actually favor high criticism.
No, that's called being insecure. Trump is a dolt with many flaws, but he's far from PC.
po·lit·i·cal cor·rect·ness
noun
the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
Unless Bill Maher took a shot at Trump's scottish heritage, or made fun of his wife for being an immigrant, Trump was being nothing more than an insecure dolt.
Saying systematic racism does not exist does not equate to denying the existence of issues caused by systematic racism. I, myself am black, and I'm fully aware of the negative effects Jim Crow and the War on Drugs had upon blacks in America. I have the right to be upset about America's past, and I am, but I'm not going sit here and act as if I am still oppressed. It's true I might be set back from the starting line by a few meters from a social and economical stand point, but me *****ing about it and not running the race isn't going to help.
I didn't mention anything about abortion in my original comment (pressing ctrl+f), you were the first to do so. But since we're on the topic, I have mixed feelings about abortion. I don't believe women should face corporal punishment for having an abortion, but I don't believe that women should be allowed to have an abortion any time during her pregnancy. Of course, I don't think there should be any law infringed upon women who choose to have an abortion, the government shouldn't have a say in the matter.
The issues on mexican immigration, Muslims, and blacks, are a little more gray then guilty vs not guilty, but its true Trump has some weird obsession/grudge, love hate relationship with China.
When it comes to illegal immigrants, statistics from the Center of Immigration studies show that there is enough evidence to claim that illegal immigrant does have a negative impact on u.s. employment for non-skilled workers, of course illegal immigrants are not the cause of ALL job loss, but they've causes a significant amount. The C.I.S. states "The idea that there are jobs American's don't do is simply not supported by the data. Moreover, there is good research showing that immigrants displace natives from the labor market.". So Trump is not wrong in blaming Mexican's for job loss.
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see links
When it comes to Muslims, they were the causes of over 12,000 deaths in 2015 alone. 450 of the 452 suicide bombings in that year alone was caused by Muslim extremist. In countries densely inhabited by Muslims, the rate at which they are in favor for suicide bombing in defense of Islam is extremely high. I can bring up more and more stats, but I believe what I've provide is sufficient enough for Trump to claim that Muslim's are violent. Of course he never said all, but to some, not saying all is to say all, which is never the case.
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see links
Hopefully you can take my word on blacks being the highest common denominator when it comes to crime and civil unrest, and that I won't have to post statistics for that as well. As for the spike in hate crimes, I see a correlation, but no causation. Finding evidence for such a claim can be difficult without running into biased and partisan sources, so I won't accept it as truth until proven other wise.
People are looking at what is taking place in the U.K (Brexit), and western European countries such as Germany, see the spike in criminal and terrorist activity, and demand a vetting process be put in place as we accept refugees into the country from now onward. You're also undermining the effects that mass immigration has on national debt, and the economy. Mind you, those are 10,000 human beings that are being housed, fed, and provided tools and finances for integration into the U.S., at the expense of tax payers dollars, so it's a very serious topic.
You state deporting illegal immigrants seems unethical, but you quickly glaze over the modifier of what makes these immigrants and issue. Whether this was intentional, or unintentional, it confirms my biased against liberals. Claiming the deportation of illegals is unethical is a logical fallacy. I find it unethical to come into a country illegally, while simultaneously cutting in front of hundreds of immigrants who fight for years to come to America through the legal process placed. Whether you believe it's morally wrong to deport them is irrelevant, there are laws put in place for a reason.
I'm curious as to who this they is.
As I've stated in my original comment, they are not asking people not to discriminate, they are forcing people to accept them through law and legislation. This is what cultural Marxism is. Jordan Peterson, the person Joe Rogan is interviewing in the video has become popular because of his opposition of the bill C-16, which is an amendment to Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, which states "This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence." as a result of this, something as simple as not referring to someone as their desired pronoun is perceived as a hate crime and can result in corporal punishment. This infringes on several of peoples freedoms and forces people to adopt the pseudoscience indoctrination of a "gender spectrum", and I'm personally against infringing on people's rights. Yes understanding women's issues and minority issues is not Marxist, but pushing for laws that make it so the amount of men in women working at a seniority position at a corporation is split 50/50, and making sure blacks and other minorities are fairly represented in every aspect of society is Marxist.
The liberals I speak of would look at your signature and instead of crediting it for looking badass af, they would question the artist as to why there aren't any minorities or more women in it.
The problem does not lie on the comment, but it lies with those who determine it's sexist or racist. We live in a society where stating "you have black friends", can be considered racist. I'm against racism, and sexism, and all the forms of negative -isms, but I do have a problem with exclusivity of humor and subject matter. You can take a complete shit on the religion of Christianity, be perfectly fine, but make a joke about Islam, and you have 17 different -isms stapled on to your character. This is a form of Cultural Marxism.
You must be registered for see images
I couldn't imagine the amount of outrage among my household alone, if this video was titled "Dear Black Guys"
I disagree with Sanders, I don't care about the amount of minorities or women we have in government, and he shouldn't either. I believe people who are courageous capable, skilled, and prove to be promising should be appointed to positions in government, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, etc. It's the idea that society must reach a diversity quota that I have a problem with.
I've provided nearly two paragraphs of history detailing how political correctness and cultural Marxism has a place at the forefront of Liberal discussion, and some how you're still able to claim it's nothing more than a red scare tactic. That is just terrifying. lol
Also, I did not dismiss the idea of being wrong. You've asked a question, I've responded, and in your very first counter argument, you state that I'll "dismiss any notion that you might be wrong about the way you perceive the issues they represent", without giving me a chance to do so. That's not fair at all, if you ask me.
Asking for equal representation rather than acquiring equal representation through the means others acquired representation in itself is communism. Asking for equal representation of men and women in STEM fields, when the majority of women major in psychology, medical, and social study, is Marxism. Asking for equal representation of blacks in the film industry when they dominate the music and sports industry, is Marxism.
Your graph did not specify whether the job loss was due to legal or illegal immigrants, let alone Mexicans. Regardless, the amount of job loss your graph shows is barely a blimp in the radar. So yeah while there is job loss, it is so insignificant that again it shouldn't even considered an issue.
I keep bringing up the example of how Alabama managed to get rid of most of their illegal immigrants back in 2011 and their economy collapsed. There were thousands of job vacancies which none of the "natives" wanted to fill and the companies had to spend millions training new recruits. When they couldn't fill those positions, they simply pulled out and left. So the idea that immigrants are stealing high class jobs that are on demand is simply a myth.
Deporting people who aren't causing a problem and who have quietly settled and are only trying to live a better life is unethical. That does not mean I agree with illegal immigration. Of course illegal immigration should be regulated, however, don't use extreme methods of doing so. And like I said before, if they do cause problems or break the law, then yeah, deport those people.
Never said that Muslim extremism wasn't a problem, but the fear mongering only hurts more than helps. ISIS even used videos of Trump as recruitment for their cause. When you bomb civilians in the Middle East, you give people more reason to hate the U.S. and join them. When you fund rebels to fight Assad in Syria, simply because Russia is on his side, it gives terrorists more power and resources.
Al Qaeda started from the Mujahideen, which was the group that the U.S. backed in their war against Soviets in Afghanistan. The U.S. has a history of funding jihadists which in turn become terrorists. It's just a repeat of history.
Al Qaeda even stated before that because of the U.S. the jihadists group can now work together and put their differences aside to fight a common enemy. These Jihadists group hate each other. Al Qaeda hates ISIS. So if you really want to get rid of ISIS, then stop going into their countries and let them fight themselves.
And the reason why you have these ISIS suicide bombings and shootings is because ISIS is losing ground and they're being desperate. Going out in a blaze is their last stand.
Banning Muslims which are U.S. civilians is not only an infringement of the first amendment, but it also will not solve the problem but only give those jihadist groups more cause. Creating a registry of Muslim or Interment camps will again not solve the problem and those charts of Muslims wanting to bomb the U.S. will only grow higher.
And it's just ironic how people are so eager to bomb the Middle East. There was even a study where Trump supporters were asked if they wanted to bomb "Agrabah," the fictional city from Aladdin and they said yes simply because it sounded Muslim.
And you wonder why there is such a tension with Muslims? You're talking about how Muslims want to bomb the U.S., meanwhile we're bombing their countries.
You must be registered for see links
There is a direct correlation between poverty and crime. Police primarily target low income households which are most often made up of minorities. And instead of listening to their side of the story and their problems, we simply label them as being more violent and throw out the argument altogether.
The original group that started BLM referred to as "campaign zero" was primarily against the use of aggressive police tactics and shootings. But instead of listening to their message, people simply on focused on the fact that BLM was violent. Yeah, BLM was really disogronized but the original group's message was pretty clear and they promoted peaceful protest.
You must be registered for see links
And yes it is a red scare tactic because nothing of what you said equates to creating a communist regime in America.
And if you're attributing Cultural Marxism to the left, then you better be also attributing Authoritarianism to the right.
You're talking about extreme sides of the political spectrum and are using Cultural Marxism as a flimsy argument to not do XYZ. Yes, that is a red scare tactic.
Your graph did not specify whether the job loss was due to legal or illegal immigrants, let alone Mexicans. Regardless, the amount of job loss your graph shows is barely a blimp in the radar. So yeah while there is job loss, it is so insignificant that again it shouldn't even considered an issue.
I keep bringing up the example of how Alabama managed to get rid of most of their illegal immigrants back in 2011 and their economy collapsed. There were thousands of job vacancies which none of the "natives" wanted to fill and the companies had to spend millions training new recruits. When they couldn't fill those positions, they simply pulled out and left. So the idea that immigrants are stealing high class jobs that are on demand is simply a myth.
Deporting people who aren't causing a problem and who have quietly settled and are only trying to live a better life is unethical. That does not mean I agree with illegal immigration. Of course illegal immigration should be regulated, however, don't use extreme methods of doing so. And like I said before, if they do cause problems or break the law, then yeah, deport those people.
Never said that Muslim extremism wasn't a problem, but the fear mongering only hurts more than helps. ISIS even used videos of Trump as recruitment for their cause. When you bomb civilians in the Middle East, you give people more reason to hate the U.S. and join them. When you fund rebels to fight Assad in Syria, simply because Russia is on his side, it gives terrorists more power and resources.
Al Qaeda started from the Mujahideen, which was the group that the U.S. backed in their war against Soviets in Afghanistan. The U.S. has a history of funding jihadists which in turn become terrorists. It's just a repeat of history.
Al Qaeda even stated before that because of the U.S. the jihadists group can now work together and put their differences aside to fight a common enemy. These Jihadists group hate each other. Al Qaeda hates ISIS. So if you really want to get rid of ISIS, then stop going into their countries and let them fight themselves.
And the reason why you have these ISIS suicide bombings and shootings is because ISIS is losing ground and they're being desperate. Going out in a blaze is their last stand.
Banning Muslims which are U.S. civilians is not only an infringement of the first amendment, but it also will not solve the problem but only give those jihadist groups more cause. Creating a registry of Muslim or Interment camps will again not solve the problem and those charts of Muslims wanting to bomb the U.S. will only grow higher.
And it's just ironic how people are so eager to bomb the Middle East. There was even a study where Trump supporters were asked if they wanted to bomb "Agrabah," the fictional city from Aladdin and they said yes simply because it sounded Muslim.
And you wonder why there is such a tension with Muslims? You're talking about how Muslims want to bomb the U.S., meanwhile we're bombing their countries.
You must be registered for see links
There is a direct correlation between poverty and crime. Police primarily target low income households which are most often made up of minorities. And instead of listening to their side of the story and their problems, we simply label them as being more violent and throw out the argument altogether.
The original group that started BLM referred to as "campaign zero" was primarily against the use of aggressive police tactics and shootings. But instead of listening to their message, people simply on focused on the fact that BLM was violent. Yeah, BLM was really disogronized but the original group's message was pretty clear and they promoted peaceful protest.
You must be registered for see links
And yes it is a red scare tactic because nothing of what you said equates to creating a communist regime in America.
And if you're attributing Cultural Marxism to the left, then you better be also attributing Authoritarianism to the right.
You're talking about extreme sides of the political spectrum and are using Cultural Marxism as a flimsy argument to not do XYZ. Yes, that is a red scare tactic.
Would you allow a person to come in your home uninvited and start using your shit as theirs because they want "a better life"? Even if they do the dishes and clean the toilet they're still uninvited and throwing them out of your home isn't unethical, no matter how comfortable they are in your home.
The liberals always complain that we have a butt load of prisoners... I just found someone who would more than likely gladly jump at an opportunity to leave the prison and earn some money while incarcerated. It would also serve to deter crime... Win win.
As I've said a thousand times before authoritarianism belongs on the left because the far right is absolute freedom, where the far left is absolute government control. You have no actual argument against this. Fascism is not a right wing belief. If a conservative wants more military control they are shifting moderate due to the leftist belief in government programs ie Military.
And because you don't believe black males commit more crime (even though there are more white males in poverty in the US than black males) answer this question
90% of all prisoners in the US are men. Do you believe there is a plot against men that creates this disparity? Or maybe just maybe men commit more crime. That's how it is when we say black men commit more crime and you call bullshit. You deny it but we know the truth.
If you don't make up 50% of the impoverished you shouldn't make up 50% of the violent criminals.
Would you allow a person to come in your home uninvited and start using your shit as theirs because they want "a better life"? Even if they do the dishes and clean the toilet they're still uninvited and throwing them out of your home isn't unethical, no matter how comfortable they are in your home.
The liberals always complain that we have a butt load of prisoners... I just found someone who would more than likely gladly jump at an opportunity to leave the prison and earn some money while incarcerated. It would also serve to deter crime... Win win.
As I've said a thousand times before authoritarianism belongs on the left because the far right is absolute freedom, where the far left is absolute government control. You have no actual argument against this. Fascism is not a right wing belief. If a conservative wants more military control they are shifting moderate due to the leftist belief in government programs ie Military.
@Bold: Say wut m8? Wtf does that even mean? Currently the left wants to cut military, while the right want to increase spending.
So when the right-wing want not allowing women to get abortions and get punished for it is not authoritarianism?
Authoritarianism isn't exclusive to either side, but in its current form, there is more authoritarianism in right-wing ideology than left-wing.
Augusto Pinochet was an authoritarian leader who sanctioned mass killing in the name of a free market. He is also a perfect example of how a utopian free market is a myth and your boy Milton Freedman considers him a hero.
This is a good summary as to why you can't accurately define either side:
Fascism and Communism can be distinguished by what they view as the unifying force in society and the source of conflict. For fascism, the unifying force is nationalism. When people don't share a nationality, there is conflict, therefore to end conflict other nationalities need to be suppressed or eliminated. For communism, the unifying force is class and conflict is caused by class differences. Therefore, to end conflict, communists must create a classless society, if need be through a bloody revolution as the bourgeois are reluctant to surrender their position.
In both cases, fascism and communism represented the logical extremes of early 20th Century ideologies. At its most moderate, right-wing ideology represents conservatism, valuing stability and tradition. Immigration is often a target of ring-wing parties because immigrants bring changes to society that can undermine stability and national traditions. Less so today than in the past, but traditional rule was hierarchical, which is why it was right-wing parties that typically opposed the expansion of voting and civil rights. Taking these values to the extreme creates an ideology that places great importance on the past and tradition, a distrust of anyone or anything foreign or new, and idealizes powerful authority figures.
On the other hand, there is left-wing ideology which values egalitarianism and progress. They view society as imperfect and something that constantly needs to be improved upon. As such, left-wing parties typically reflect the values and needs of minority or other disenfranchised groups who want a society where they have greater agency. Since traditional values are less important to left-wing parties, they tend to be secularist and more tolerant of different cultures. To them one of the imperfections of society is the presence of inequality. To this end, left-wing parties tend to favor the expansion of voting and civil rights as well as programs which alleviate economic differences. Taking these values to the extreme creates an ideology that seeks to replace traditional values and institutions, places emphasis on the societal progress, and eliminates concentrations of wealth and power.
Now, of course, there are many exceptions to these rules as the society in which a party is formed has a lot of influence on it. Most glaringly, Stalinism was highly contradictory in rhetoric and in practice. American politics also greatly deviate from the traditional political spectrum as the Republican and Democratic parties have sometimes switched positions over the course of their long histories.
There is also the fact that ideology is not set in stone because what is considered right-wing or left-wing is defined by contemporary conditions, not by a historic fixed point. For example, I mentioned that in the past right-wing parties supported hierarchical rule. This is because during the 19th Century being right-wing was akin to being a monarchist as monarchy represented traditional rule. As monarchies are largely irrelevant today, this is no longer a major part of right-wing ideology. Similarly, in the past, property rights and free market economics were seen as left-wing ideals. Over time though, these have become the accepted norms. This is why the free market parties in Norway and Denmark are called "Venstre", meaning "left", even though by today's standards on economic issues they are considered right-wing.
It gets even more confusing when trying to pin down leftist ideology. While most people, even if they don't like it, can agree what are the current political, economic, and societal norms, when it comes to changing these norms, everyone has a different answer. As such, left-wing parties often splinter because all the factions within the party want to change society, but they can't agree on how.
You mention militarism in your question. While there is tendency towards pacifism among left-wing parties, it is not a defining characteristic of left-wing ideology. Likewise, militarism is not a defining characteristic of right-wing ideology. Both in the their extreme forms are highly militaristic. The difference is in justification. For many right-wing parties, war is permissible if it is good for the nation. For many left-wing parties, war is permissible if it is seen as a way of ending a humanitarian crisis. Both, however, are willing to go to war to remove a realistic threat.
And because you don't believe black males commit more crime (even though there are more white males in poverty in the US than black males) answer this question
Never stated that at all. I'm just denying that there is more crime simply because they are a certain skin color. Poverty and crime are directly related.
And here is your answer to the other statement. The article answers your entire question, so you might want to read all of it.
90% of all prisoners in the US are men. Do you believe there is a plot against men that creates this disparity? Or maybe just maybe men commit more crime. That's how it is when we say black men commit more crime and you call bullshit. You deny it but we know the truth.
Well most people are also incarcerated for non-violent crimes such as possession of marijuana. Yes there was a plot, against low income households and also as a way to keep marijuana illegal so that pharmaceutical companies wouldn't lose profit over legalized marijuana.
And then with privatized prisons, came a for-profit motive on top of that.
Let me start off by saying, you're committing multiple logical fallacies in this reply; shifting the goal post, anecdotal arguments, argument of ignorance, etc.
Your graph did not specify whether the job loss was due to legal or illegal immigrants, let alone Mexicans. Regardless, the amount of job loss your graph shows is barely a blimp in the radar. So yeah while there is job loss, it is so insignificant that again it shouldn't even considered an issue.
Ignorance of Evidence. I left a link to the website where I cited my information. I've provided enough clarification in my own words to give you a gist of what the graph is showing, it is then up to you to check my sources if you question the credibility. Not checking my sources and claiming the graph was not specific enough is ignorance of evidence. Also, whether you consider it significant or not is irrelevant. Most people with a good understanding of economics would argue that the loss of over 100,000 jobs is a considerable amount, but that is not the argument at hand.
I keep bringing up the example of how Alabama managed to get rid of most of their illegal immigrants back in 2011 and their economy collapsed. There were thousands of job vacancies which none of the "natives" wanted to fill and the companies had to spend millions training new recruits. When they couldn't fill those positions, they simply pulled out and left. So the idea that immigrants are stealing high class jobs that are on demand is simply a myth.
Anecdotal fallacy. You're story about Alabama contradicts the nationwide scaled sampling of the C.I.S. (Center of Immigration Statistics). I'm not saying that you're lying, or your story is false, it maybe an outlier or a rare incident.
Shifting the goal post fallacy. The topic was whether or not Trump was justified in blaming illegals for job loss. I provide evidence of illegals taking job non-skilled and skilled jobs, and now you've shifted the argument to high class jobs. It was never about which classification of jobs, only the loss of jobs, period.
Deporting people who aren't causing a problem and who have quietly settled and are only trying to live a better life is unethical. That does not mean I agree with illegal immigration. Of course illegal immigration should be regulated, however, don't use extreme methods of doing so. And like I said before, if they do cause problems or break the law, then yeah, deport those people.
Ethical Fallacy. This is an ethical malpractice you're committing here, we have to follow truth and ethics on this. "It doesn't matter how beneficial a lie is to the person you tell, you're still telling a lie, it doesn't matter whether a criminal commits a crime with good intention, good intention does not stop it from being a crime." If you agree with those logical followings, then you should agree that it doesn't matter if illegal immigrants are trying to settle and create a better live for themselves, they're still committing a crime. I recommend checking out this link, it lists out commonly made ethical fallacies and emotional appeals people make in arguments, yours being one of them.
You must be registered for see links
Never said that Muslim extremism wasn't a problem, but the fear mongering only hurts more than helps. ISIS even used videos of Trump as recruitment for their cause. When you bomb civilians in the Middle East, you give people more reason to hate the U.S. and join them. When you fund rebels to fight Assad in Syria, simply because Russia is on his side, it gives terrorists more power and resources.
I don't believe discussing the serious threat of Islam to the western world is fear mongering. I don't believe middle eastern refugees are fleeing from the middle east because they got tired of the scenery.
Al Qaeda started from the Mujahideen, which was the group that the U.S. backed in their war against Soviets in Afghanistan. The U.S. has a history of funding jihadists which in turn become terrorists. It's just a repeat of history.
Al Qaeda even stated before that because of the U.S. the jihadists group can now work together and put their differences aside to fight a common enemy. These Jihadists group hate each other. Al Qaeda hates ISIS. So if you really want to get rid of ISIS, then stop going into their countries and let them fight themselves.
And the reason why you have these ISIS suicide bombings and shootings is because ISIS is losing ground and they're being desperate. Going out in a blaze is their last stand.
I do agree with this, The Islamic state is not entirely to blame for the hellfire and chaos they've brought upon the middle east, but to say they do not have a large hand in the violence they commit and have no reasons outside of the U.S. bombing the middle east is ignorance of evidence. I've supported evidence and statistics of Muslims that support terrorist groups and suicide bombings who exist outside of the effected area of the United States affairs with the middle east. There are also terrorist acts committed against other Western European countries and Muslims alike, so to try and move the blame entirely away from Islam is disingenuous.
Banning Muslims which are U.S. civilians is not only an infringement of the first amendment, but it also will not solve the problem but only give those jihadist groups more cause. Creating a registry of Muslim or Interment camps will again not solve the problem and those charts of Muslims wanting to bomb the U.S. will only grow higher.
I believe a temporary ban on refugee immigration until a vetting process is put in place is justified. You may disagree, but both our opinions are irrelevant in the discussion of cultural marxism. I'd also need a citation on Trump creating internment camps.
And it's just ironic how people are so eager to bomb the Middle East. There was even a study where Trump supporters were asked if they wanted to bomb "Agrabah," the fictional city from Aladdin and they said yes simply because it sounded Muslim.
And you wonder why there is such a tension with Muslims? You're talking about how Muslims want to bomb the U.S., meanwhile we're bombing their countries.
Irrelevant to the topic at hand. Literally all of it.
There is a direct correlation between poverty and crime. Police primarily target low income households which are most often made up of minorities. And instead of listening to their side of the story and their problems, we simply label them as being more violent and throw out the argument altogether.
Shifting the goal post. The topic at hand is Trump blaming minorities for civil unrest, you yourself have acknowledged the crime. Whether you believe the crime is justified or handled properly is irrelevant.
The original group that started BLM referred to as "campaign zero" was primarily against the use of aggressive police tactics and shootings. But instead of listening to their message, people simply on focused on the fact that BLM was violent. Yeah, BLM was really disogronized but the original group's message was pretty clear and they promoted peaceful protest.
I was a part of the initial BLM until I realized the entire movement was built on the false premise of Mike Brown being a victim of police brutality, when in fact he committed a strong armed robbery before trying to reach into a police officer's vehicle to retrieve his gun from his waist. I was also a part of the movement until it devolved into a race baiting, hate group focused on gaining an advantage rather than equality. You admit the organization is disorganized, and it is. I'm seeing it first hand in my city. (but that's irrelevant). BLM had good intentions, but devolved into another sjw, authoritarian, hate brigade.
And yes it is a red scare tactic because nothing of what you said equates to creating a communist regime in America.
You're talking about extreme sides of the political spectrum and are using Cultural Marxism as a flimsy argument to not do XYZ. Yes, that is a red scare tactic.
I never stated this equated to the creation of a communist regime, I've only stated that it was cultural Marxism, you're getting a head of me here. And yes, Cultural Marxism and those indoctrinated in it's theory are an extreme aspect of the political spectrum, where cultural Marxism can only exist on the left, white nationalism can only exist on the right. Acknowledging this doesn't make all conservatives white nationalist or all liberals cultural Marxist. I've stated already that modern liberalism i.e. Progressivism is essentially cultural Marxism, and a product of the left.
Fiji I like the way you make arguments, without resulting into bashing. America needs more liberals like you. I hope that the way how things escalated with the sjw's vs all other people with "wrong opinions" to Trump's election will teach the youth of U.S that the key is indeed discussion. We will always have left and right side, no matter what we do, so the main thing is to find common ground, to look for ways to cooperate. And to do so is with logical arguments, being pragmatical. Because facts are what matters. Facts don't care about anyone's feelings. No one has the right to not get offended. This is what the current leftist have failed to understand. Engaging in a debate with the premise of finding the truth is much more fruitful than engaging in a debate with the premise that your opinion is the only right one out there.
Fiji I like the way you make arguments, without resulting into bashing. America needs more liberals like you. I hope that the way how things escalated with the sjw's vs all other people with "wrong opinions" to Trump's election will teach the youth of U.S that the key is indeed discussion. We will always have left and right side, no matter what we do, so the main thing is to find common ground, to look for ways to cooperate. And to do so is with logical arguments, being pragmatical. Because facts are what matters. Facts don't care about anyone's feelings. No one has the right to not get offended. This is what the current leftist have failed to understand. Engaging in a debate with the premise of finding the truth is much more fruitful than engaging in a debate with the premise that your opinion is the only right one out there.
Thanks, and I agree 100%. The goal of civil discourse shouldn't be to demonize and ridicule the opposition, but to try to gain better understanding of reality through an objective lens, like you explained. I honestly couldn't have explained it better myself.
Let me start off by saying, you're committing multiple logical fallacies in this reply; shifting the goal post, anecdotal arguments, argument of ignorance, etc.
Ignorance of Evidence. I left a link to the website where I cited my information. I've provided enough clarification in my own words to give you a gist of what the graph is showing, it is then up to you to check my sources if you question the credibility. Not checking my sources and claiming the graph was not specific enough is ignorance of evidence. Also, whether you consider it significant or not is irrelevant. Most people with a good understanding of economics would argue that the loss of over 100,000 jobs is a considerable amount, but that is not the argument at hand.
Anecdotal fallacy. You're story about Alabama contradicts the nationwide scaled sampling of the C.I.S. (Center of Immigration Statistics). I'm not saying that you're lying, or your story is false, it maybe an outlier or a rare incident.
If the actual event contradicted the study, that only means the study was fallible in its data.
Also, I just researched that the source you posted and apparently the "center for immigration studies" is actually an anti-immigration, alt-right site posing as a non-partisan think tank, creating by John Tanton who has a white nationalistic background.
So pretty much the data you sourced for your immigration argument was falsified.
Shifting the goal post fallacy. The topic was whether or not Trump was justified in blaming illegals for job loss. I provide evidence of illegals taking job non-skilled and skilled jobs, and now you've shifted the argument to high class jobs. It was never about which classification of jobs, only the loss of jobs, period.
Ethical Fallacy. This is an ethical malpractice you're committing here, we have to follow truth and ethics on this. "It doesn't matter how beneficial a lie is to the person you tell, you're still telling a lie, it doesn't matter whether a criminal commits a crime with good intention, good intention does not stop it from being a crime." If you agree with those logical followings, then you should agree that it doesn't matter if illegal immigrants are trying to settle and create a better live for themselves, they're still committing a crime. I recommend checking out this link, it lists out commonly made ethical fallacies and emotional appeals people make in arguments, yours being one of them.
The only crime committed is not adhering to a governmental label which can easily be addressed by granting amnesty and citizenship.
Again, I believe illegal immigration should be regulated. But if an illegal immigrant is in this country for 10+ years and has a family, a job, and is even paying taxes. Then no, I fundamentally think it is morally unjustified to deport him simply on the merit that he is not a legal citizen.
I don't believe discussing the serious threat of Islam to the western world is fear mongering. I don't believe middle eastern refugees are fleeing from the middle east because they got tired of the scenery.
Islam wasn't discussed, it was demonized. And the conclusion was banning all Muslims, even if they are citizens of the U.S. and by violating the First Amendment.
The refugee crisis was started because of an extreme drought, not because of religious beliefs.
I believe a temporary ban on refugee immigration until a vetting process is put in place is justified. You may disagree, but both our opinions are irrelevant in the discussion of cultural marxism. I'd also need a citation on Trump creating internment camps.
Irrelevant to the topic at hand. Literally all of it.
Shifting the goal post. The topic at hand is Trump blaming minorities for civil unrest, you yourself have acknowledged the crime. Whether you believe the crime is justified or handled properly is irrelevant.
I never stated this equated to the creation of a communist regime, I've only stated that it was cultural Marxism, you're getting a head of me here. And yes, Cultural Marxism and those indoctrinated in it's theory are an extreme aspect of the political spectrum, where cultural Marxism can only exist on the left, white nationalism can only exist on the right. Acknowledging this doesn't make all conservatives white nationalist or all liberals cultural Marxist. I've stated already that modern liberalism i.e. Progressivism is essentially cultural Marxism, and a product of the left.
Ok, what is the point of bringing up Cultural Marxism if not to demonize the current beliefs of the left?
Unless you're saying that not all aspects of Marxist beliefs are bad and that adopting some of his philosophies in a moderate way is not a bad thing and does not mean that the left will eventually adhere to Communism?
That is what this whole argument is essentially about.
