Sign In or Create an Account
I never really followed them, but I used to binge The Whitest Kids You Know while procrastinating when I was in college. It's sad to hear that he died.
For those not in the know, the rationalization for why overrepresentation isn't bad for "marginalized" groups is "restorative justice".
Basically, when overrepresentation is a positive thing (say in the high paying realms of sports and music), then it's seen as fair because it makes up for "wrongs of the past".
One area you see this in that's not talked about much is university student demographics. I don't have the statistics on hand, but if I recall correctly, the majority of both students and people who end up graduating are women. Is that evidence of systemic oppression (like it was when the genders were reversed)? Nope! The women deserve it and the men had it coming! It's true justice!
Can it truly be the good life if you're drinking Heineken?
There's merit to anything when you only have to consider it on purely theoretical terms divorced from real world consequences. That's why, like you, so many are enthralled by communism. As it turns out, any system sounds good when you assume everyone will behave perfectly in the way required for the system to work.
"Natural immunity is a right wing conspiracy theory." - The Science
Maybe he thought it was all a flimflam?
There is no far right white supremacy issue. It doesn't exist. It's propaganda.
The main reasons I see are:
They're idealists that believe the free market can solve any problem. Personally, I think this is a valid criticism.
They tend to be pro open borders.
They tend to fall on the side of globalism rather than nationalism.
I'm partial to libertarianism (I've been getting into the Mises Institute lately), but these are my personal hangups. And I've seen the sentiments echoed here by others who don't just say shit like "lolbertarians".
Protip: these people don't care. They believe they're fighting fascism and tyranny while ushering us into utopia.
Do you have any good sources handy that a normie would accept? I explained Tulsi's takedown from the debates to a friend and she was incredulous about it, especially the prison labor part.
Most of Milley's are probably for attending diversity training.
Let's be clear, making generalizations like that is retarded.
You say that, but we're talking about a court that consistently has 4/9 members who interpret the 2nd ammendment to mean, quite literally, the opposite of what it says.
If you banned bio-weapons, then anybody who has the rona would be in possession of a bio-weapon. So I'm surprised they haven't used this line of reasoning to lock up the infected and unvaccinated.
I feel like there's maybe a way that you could define a "weapon of mass destruction" so that it doesn't apply to basically everything. Then you could draw the line there.
But no matter how it's worded it'll still be applied to basically everything. So, screw it, I should be able to own a nuke!
Oh man, I can feel the pure euphoria emanating from every word of your completely irrelevant rebuttal. But you can't have ready copy-paste answers for everything, so you use what you got. Amirite?
Since you clearly didn't understand my point, let me give you a recap.
In summary, your claim is that religion is anti-science and has held back science.
In my post I made the following claims:
Note that none of what I said had to do with atrocities committed by Christians, nor did I deny any such things. My point is that, as communism and fascism clearly show, secular ideologies also lead to atrocities. Because atrocities are caused by humans, not by religions. Religions are an excuse. The people driving the atrocities will use whatever excuse necessary (see communism and fascism).
Do a bit of self reflection. You believe that religion has severely impeded human progress. So, clearly, if there was nobody who practiced religion the world would be a better place. In fact, you could say that religious people are stealing a better world from you. If they didn't exist, things would be so much better. Maybe things would be so much better that "dealing" with religious people is worth it. I mean, besides stalling progress, they cause so much tragedy. It would actually be better for everybody if there were no religious people.....
Since I'm sure you didn't understand it, the point of the above paragraph was to show that the kinds of beliefs you yourself hold are the kinds that have been used to inspire exactly the kinds of atrocities your copy-paste monstrosity is full of. People like you, in the right circumstances, would be more than willing to commit genocide of religious people. And you would justify it because they were actually the bad guys.
I voted for Lindsey Graham.
Oh boy, a classic atheist edgelord.
Christianity has existed for 2000 years. It didn't have the institutional power to ban science for a significant amount of that time. Then Christians in Europe invented science as we know it today.
Christian monks preserved ancient knowlwdge and scholarship through the dark ages.
Currently, the most anti-science ideologies are secular. The dominant secular ideology claims that science is invalid. Secular governments all around the world are silencing scientists because only their beauracratically selected scientists know the "truth".
You edgelord retards always miss the common factor in everything bad about humanity: humans.
As societies became more secular they didn't become more rational. They developed Marxism which is irrational utopian nonsense. And don't pretend that it's just crazy Marxists who believe utopian nonsense. The goodness and perfectibility of man is a common theme of secular humanism. See, for example, your belief that we would be exploring the stars if it weren't for religion.
Marxism eventually led to post-modernism which is skeptical of science. That skepticism was taken up by the current critical social justice movement as pure science denial.
So clearly even without belief in the supernatural people will develop all of the bad parts of religion.
But hey, why analyze the situation rationally when we can just blame everything on religion? That will definitely be productive and could never lead to horrors like communism!
How do you:
A) lose a plane
B) not know how many planes you lost if you do lose a plane?
Am I to believe the military doesn't take inventory of their equipment?
Stop with this idiotic "we can only pay attention to one thing" rhetoric. You say we're in war. What do you think the enemy is going to do if you only care about 1 front? The enemy isn't slowing down anywhere else.
"Well, vaccines were mandated, China conquered Taiwan, and I own nothing (I'm not happy about it though), but at least I never engaged with any issue outside of election fraud!"
Yes, election fraud is an important thing we need to fight against. But our enemy is the Democrats/deep state/uniparty/media. We need to fight back in every way we can and get as much support from the sheep as we can.
I'm sure he's talking about the huwite supremes running roughshod over the country.
Because all the women and children were given to the conquerors as wives.
For all the talk here that we're in a war, a lot of people sure are ready to cede every front besides their chosen one....
Good xirs and xadams, there's no way our government could be so incompetent as to let Taliban in amongst the refugees. We've been fighting them for decades, we know all their tricks! It's inconceivable that they could pull a fast one on us, or otherwise overcome our intelligence apparatus.