Trump's newest tweet is really scary

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 hour ago, verneforchat said:

Not all of us are Trump supporters.

 

Most of the country isn't. He lost the popular vote. He doesn't have a mandate.

[eieio 1,594]

hehe

[JayJayH 546]

12 hours ago, smilesammich said:

these 'zones' started more as a way to keep the majority from harassing women, gays and racial minorities, etc. they're not new and colleges haven't suddenly, upon the appearance of millennials, started crafting these rules to appease liberals. lets get that straight first.

 

no, you do not get to scrutinize an individual's gender. and no, you do not get to scrutinize an individual's religion. that is, harassment. not sure why you think that's ok.

 

well first, i think you need to focus on if you're speaking about a non affiliated guest speaker or a student or a professor. then focus on the setting, is it a class? a rally? a paid speaking engagement?

 

seems like you want a black and white response, very cut and dry. that just isn't ever going to happen in a country of 308 million differing opinions. that's why protest is so important, so we have a means to shut people up who are full of it.

 

 

Yes I do. A religion is a set of ideas. So is a political ideology. No idea is beyond scrutiny. Scrutiny of absolute monarchy is what got us democracy. Scrutiny of religion is what got us the enlightenment. You think secularism exists because 16th century scientists and philosophers cared how catholics felt? Scrutinizing the living daylights out of the church is why people aren't being burned at the stake in the Vatican anymore. Keep it up and perhaps gays and apostates won't have their heads chopped off in Mecca anymore.

 

On your last point, I agree. I was happy to see millions of people show the new administration that people are watching. 2.5 million people marching. 0 arrests. It was amazing.

Edited February 7, 2017 by JayJayH

[JayJayH 546]

9 hours ago, verneforchat said:

Why? Was she yelling in a classroom? 

I dont expect my professor to be a professor 24/7.

 

This is assuming this person is a professor. 

My undergraduate English-101 class could have easily been renamed "Bush is an Alcoholic Nazi 101."

 

I'm not overly concerned what a professor does or say outside of work. I do think society has a reason to be concerned about liberal bias in academia - Not because they're necessarily all wrong. But if, as a society, we truly believe people are judged by character rather than skin color, than we should seek intellectual diversity, not just gender and ethnic diversity. If 9/10 professors consider themselves to be far to the left - How is that any different from 9/10 professors being 60 year old white men?

[JayJayH 546]

9 hours ago, verneforchat said:

Why? Was she yelling in a classroom? 

I dont expect my professor to be a professor 24/7.

 

This is assuming this person is a professor. 

Just to elaborate..

 

If we measure diversity in terms of group think (identity politics), meaning strictly by superficial means - skin color, national origin, gender - then we're agreeing that what makes us who we are as individuals is largely superficial - skin color, national origin, gender etc.

 

I have far more in common with my African-American coworker than I have with some random evangelical white dude in Mississippi. I had far more in common with my Korean-American ex wife than I do with some random activist at Berkeley who happens to share my pigmentation and gender. I have far more in common with my gay neighbor than I do my straight neighbor. Don't get me wrong, I do care about racial diversity. But when skin color and bedroom preference becomes the sole measures society uses to quantify diversity (identity politics), then "judge a man by the content of his character" has absolutely no meaning.

 

That's why I worry about the extreme liberal bias in important areas like academia. For the same reason I worry about Huffington Post's editorial board being 100% white women.

Edited February 7, 2017 by JayJayH

[OriZ 3,157]

New drinking game every time the popular vote argument comes back up....

[smilesammich 10,727]

56 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

 

Yes I do. A religion is a set of ideas. So is a political ideology. No idea is beyond scrutiny. Scrutiny of absolute monarchy is what got us democracy. Scrutiny of religion is what got us the enlightenment. You think secularism exists because 16th century scientists and philosophers cared how catholics felt? Scrutinizing the living daylights out of the church is why people aren't being burned at the stake in the Vatican anymore. Keep it up and perhaps gays and apostates won't have their heads chopped off in Mecca anymore.

 

On your last point, I agree. I was happy to see millions of people show the new administration that people are watching. 2.5 million people marching. 0 arrests. It was amazing.

you were talking about scrutinizing an individual's religion. not scrutinizing a religion. there's a yuge difference. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

37 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

For the same reason I worry about Huffington Post's editorial board being 100% white women.

seriously, you worry about that? ginsburg must have terrified you with her all female scotus comments.

 

[JayJayH 546]

22 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

you were talking about scrutinizing an individual's religion. not scrutinizing a religion. there's a yuge difference. 

Which is why I say 'Islam', never individual Muslims. Or Judaism, never individual Jews. Or Christianity, never individual Christians.

 

Actually, call me a bigot, but scientologists may be an exception.

 

15 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

seriously, you worry about that? ginsburg must have terrified you with her all female scotus comments.

 

Not so much worry. But I do find it funny that HuffPost's 'diversity picture' of its editorial board is less diverse than the board of the National Rifle Association.

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, JayJayH said:

Which is why I say 'Islam', never individual Muslims. Or Judaism, never individual Jews. Or Christianity, never individual Christians.

 

Actually, call me a bigot, but scientologists may be an exception.

 

Not so much worry. But I do find it funny that HuffPost's 'diversity picture' of its editorial board is less diverse than the board of the National Rifle Association.

actually, you said 'individual's religion'. pretty specific to the individual.

 

i dont think you're a bigot, i just find your ideas about liberalism reactionary and lacking.

 

not to be a stickler, you said it worried you. at this point in the game i think our current potus lack of diversity surrounding him is much more problematic and speaks to the larger picture we're dealing with.

[JayJayH 546]

8 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

Most of the country isn't. He lost the popular vote. He doesn't have a mandate.

 

Eh.......

 

Trump was far from my first pick either. But the popular vote argument is kind of like saying the Falcons won because they played better 3/4 of the game.

 

If leading by 3/4 of the game were the established rules, then the Patriots would have  strategized differently. Likewise, if winning the popular vote was the established rule, I doubt the Trump campaign would have strategized the way they did. I'm not saying Trump would have won. But the notion that Clinton "really" won is purely hypothetical.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, JayJayH said:

 

Eh.......

 

Trump was far from my first pick either. But the popular vote argument is kind of like saying the Falcons won because they played better 3/4 of the game.

 

If leading by 3/4 of the game were the established rules, then the Patriots would have  strategized differently. Likewise, if winning the popular vote was the established rule, I doubt the Trump campaign would have strategized the way they did. I'm not saying Trump would have won. But the notion that Clinton "really" won is purely hypothetical.

no, it's not. football has absolutely nothing to do with voting for potus. hilarious you're trying to use football to explain the election.

[bcking 3,157]

11 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

 

Eh.......

 

Trump was far from my first pick either. But the popular vote argument is kind of like saying the Falcons won because they played better 3/4 of the game.

 

If leading by 3/4 of the game were the established rules, then the Patriots would have  strategized differently. Likewise, if winning the popular vote was the established rule, I doubt the Trump campaign would have strategized the way they did. I'm not saying Trump would have won. But the notion that Clinton "really" won is purely hypothetical.

Sorry that is a horrible analogy.

 

There is no sports analogy that works. It would be like a game where instead of the total number of points deciding the winner, the "spread" of points throughout the game is the deciding factor. So getting 2 points in all four quarters (total of 8) would beat a team who got 16 in the 4th.

 

If anything the Superbowl analogy then would support Clinton winning, not Trump. Since the Patriots won by making most of their points in one small place (4th quarter, think of it like NYC/California and other large population areas).

Edited February 7, 2017 by bcking

[JayJayH 546]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

actually, you said 'individual's religion'. pretty specific to the individual.

 

i dont think you're a bigot, i just find your ideas about liberalism reactionary and lacking.

 

not to be a stickler, you said it worried you. at this point in the game i think our current potus lack of diversity surrounding him is much more problematic and speaks to the larger picture we're dealing with.

 

An individual's political ideology.

An individual's religion.

Not the actual individual.

 

I know some people who don't believe in evolution. I think that's a pretty wacky concept that should be scrutinized to the fullest. They're wonderful people though, and I don't harass them individually.

The GOP has been whiter than the Dems since 1964. Trump's administration is whiter than the Bush administration, but roughly on par with the Reagan administration.

 

I still scratch my head at why he didn't nominate Omarosa Manigault or Katrina Pierson as press secretary though.

 

But hey. At least Ben Carson is HUD secretary.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Just now, smilesammich said:

no, it's not. football has absolutely nothing to do with voting for potus. hilarious you're trying to use football to explain the election.

I beg to differ.

 

Football and general elections both have an end goal and a clear definition of how to "win."

In football, you have to have the most points. In a general election, you have to have the most electoral votes.

You plan and strategize by those rules. If you smash your opponent in number of tacles and yards ran, that still doesn't help you if your opponent focused their entire game on getting more touchdowns than you did.

Likewise, if you rack up huge margins in California, New York and Illinois, that still doesn't help you if your opponent focused their entire game on beating you in Florida and the Midwest.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

17 minutes ago, JayJayH said:

 

Eh.......

 

Trump was far from my first pick either. But the popular vote argument is kind of like saying the Falcons won because they played better 3/4 of the game.

 

If leading by 3/4 of the game were the established rules, then the Patriots would have  strategized differently. Likewise, if winning the popular vote was the established rule, I doubt the Trump campaign would have strategized the way they did. I'm not saying Trump would have won. But the notion that Clinton "really" won is purely hypothetical.

Great analogy.  I doubt it will lessen the Butthurt of the Hate Trump no matter what crowd. Same crowd that cried crocodile tears, whenever anyone dared critique Obama or get in the way of his agenda.