1
Churchill 1 point ago +2 / -1

No, we weren’t going round and round :). We had just about reached the logical “end of the line” in your reasoning and had nowhere else to go. So you got off the train before it crashed.

Finishing out the thought — if it’s possible to hate all Jews, if we understand what that phrase means, then we can have a special word for that, like “antisemitic.”

Your argument that “antisemetic” is a meaningless term is another way of saying “Jewish” is a meaningless term. It sounds like a weird attempt to argue Jews don’t exist. That’s pretty antisemetic. :)

0
Churchill 0 points ago +1 / -1

Sorry, that doesn’t follow unless you’re arguing that all white people are Jewish.

Edit: To clarify, I am interpreting your comment to be “I don’t need a special word because whats’ the term for hating all whites”

0
Churchill 0 points ago +1 / -1

Ok, and let’s be clear. It is possible to hate all Jews, not just some Jews. But all Jews and whatever it is that makes them “Jewish”. That is possible?

0
Churchill 0 points ago +1 / -1

Ok, so you are arguing it is not possible to hate Jews?

0
Churchill 0 points ago +1 / -1

Sorry, are you trying to argue in a very oblique way that antisemitism is a meaningless term?

0
Churchill 0 points ago +1 / -1

Nah, Jewish or jewish or whatever is not a race.

The term Jewish refers to either a religion or a culture.

Most Jews are basic white europeans. Some Jews are semitic people comparable to Persians and Arabs. A small number of Jews are black people.

So, no, I don’t think antisemitism is racism.

-1
Churchill -1 points ago +1 / -2

For the sake of continuity I will re-post what I posted. I had decided just to let it go, but you responded very quickly. I wrote something like:

Not sure what that has to do with anti-semitism.

In answer to your question, I’d imagine there’s a special word for it because (1) most Jews running around Europe are basically white so racism doesn’t really work and (2) because it’s such a common very specific form of irrational hate that it gets its own very special name.

Trump likes Jews and Israel, you know.

-2
Churchill -2 points ago +2 / -4

Your comment went off the rail when you said “Zionist.”

-29
Churchill -29 points ago +16 / -45

There are some posters active on this website that will like this, unfortunately.

by --1--
1
Churchill 1 point ago +1 / -0

Some goading is effective. Some ineffective. It tends to be more effective against idiots.

Hopefully people on here are smart enough not to go off into the street with a gun because some anonymous moron asked “when will somebody do something?”

by --1--
1
Churchill 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes I agree with everything you’ve said. Nothing you’ve said is inconsistent with anything I’ve said.

by --1--
1
Churchill 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sorry you’re not making sense. There are whole industries based on persuading people to do things and intelligence agencies employ people to manipulate news and public discourse to affect public opinions and the decisions of individuals.

I agree with you that people are accountable for their actions, but that’s quite beside the point.

3
Churchill 3 points ago +3 / -0

What makes this particularly good is the dog is a fairly good advocate for Trump’s positions. I’m impressed they didn’t make the dog into some sort of race baiting sexual harasser.

10
Churchill 10 points ago +10 / -0

Ah I misread it. I thought it said “Satin”. Probably to flush his eyes if he’s tear gassed or pepper sprayed.

5
Churchill 5 points ago +6 / -1

So what is the can of “Simply Satin” for? It’s hair spray. Is that an accelerant to make fires?

by --1--
1
Churchill 1 point ago +1 / -0

As a factual matter, a human being can be goaded into doing something. When that person is goaded into doing that thing then he will be responsible for his actions, notwithstanding that he was goaded. Being goaded does not mean you were not responsible. They are not mutually exclusive.

EDIT: To clarify — goaded means induced to act. It doesn’t mean making the choice for you. It’s creating an atmosphere of pressure and false sense of support that tilts somebody’s decision making so they make a choice they might not have made in the absence of that inducement. People are induced to do things all the time.

1
Churchill 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, I think at this point the media have so little credibility that they can’t really impact the race, so they’re not relevant. And the Democrats are not so good on messaging — they just can count on the media to parrot their message (and cover for their miscues) so they seem very coordinated. Where that goes wrong is they’re in a bubble and don’t know how the public is really feeling so the message they transmit is often totally wrong and backfires.

I think how the Kenosha Kid ultimately plays will depend on facts. It looks like he was defending himself, and the public can see these people were violent and are tired of the rioting, so they will back the guy if he was just defending himself.

The big question I have is why was he there and what was he doing. If he was protecting his dad’s store, that’s one thing. If he traveled from Illinois to Wisconsin with his rifle in order to to get himself involved in mayhem, that may not play so well long term.

I don’t really know enough about what he was doing and why he was there.

by --1--
1
Churchill 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m not following you. You can be goaded into doing something and still be responsible for your actions.

I have concerns that there are some provocateurs active trying to get conservatives to commit violence. You see posts on this site from people saying “when will people so something?” “How long are we going to take this?” Blah blah blah

If the poster wanted to do something, he could just do it and post video of his brave actions. But these posters are not interested in acting themselves. They’re looking to instigate other people to act and bear the consequences.

People on this site need to be smart.

by --1--
1
Churchill 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m very suspicious of posters trying to goad people into participating in the violence. It’s up to people to defend their homes and families. People should not be driving across state lines to violently engage with the loonies. The Constitution recognizes the right of the local population (the militia), bearing their own arms, to defend themselves. If people in places like Portland are too weak to stand up for themselves, and insist on electing leadership that feeds them into the woodchipper, then they’re responsible for their fate.

4
Churchill 4 points ago +4 / -0

The expressions of surprise when somebody gets hurt is mind boggling. They’re out rioting, committing vandalism and arson and assaulting people. Then somebody get’s shot and they’re like “OH MY GOD!” Really?

1
Churchill 1 point ago +1 / -0

For when they swalloweth the big reddeth pill that shall be the 2020 election result, and the veil of lies woven by demagogues that now covers their eyes is cast aside, they shall be most open to thy message. - Not Proverbs

2
Churchill 2 points ago +2 / -0

Approval is not the same as “voting for” but I expect Trump will get historic support from the black community as compared to recent Republican candidates. The question is whether the extra support he gets from minorities will offset any losses among white women. White ladies for whatever reason are most open to voting for Biden to make rioters feel better. You can see it in the BLM protests where young white women are really the dominant force.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›