Not really relevant. Still retarded to act as if there's any significant difference between killing Communists in one place versus another. The whole "America never really stood up" is bunk as well, nothing but a Nirvana fallacy.
There's always a line, but at least some people make it out to be more of a blurry general area. To me it's a lot like reading pedophilia apologists. Yes, TECHNICALLY the simple desire to have sexual relations with underage children is not the same as actually engaging in them, and while you're free to think whatever you want, rarely does it ever seem to stay limited to thoughts.
Libertarian/liberal mentalities are why we're here in the first place. Societal standards were constantly eroded bit by bit with the "Meh it doesn't affect me" attitude.
You can have free speech, the right to protest, etc. etc. and still have standards. That "protest" is no longer a "protest" when you start harassing random people or blocking access.
Well yeah, she just fits the bill of a "strong non-white female" that is perfectly willing to sign off on ridiculous legislation and who is also somewhat electable in the eyes of their constituents. She probably has a little above average intelligence and is pretty manipulative, while most of the other non-white leftist women are simply too dumb to look good holding such a public office. They also know a lot of their constituents are willing to overlook the whole "she locked up a bunch of blacks".
HURR DURR U NED A BRIAN
Get real. Again, Hunter's money along isn't going to be enough to implicate Joe in anything because it doesn't prove Joe's involvement. Joe defending him also isn't enough to implicate him of a crime. By that logic, any lawyer that defends anyone in court who ends up convicted should likewise be sent to prison.
As long as you keep it cool and dry it'll keep for years. The investment depends on how elaborate a setup you want, but you'll at least need a press, dies, a priming tool, a case trimmer, and ways to measure and dispense powder.
There's also a chance that Rosenbaum was shot accidentally by a guy who was aiming for Kyle.
Like how I supposedly asked you if you've asked Jews anything? Why are you quoting yourself to prove I claimed you believe something?
You keep using this weird phrasing that I never used, like "specific access". Don't you reckon it'd be easier to simply reply to what I did say?
How is that "weird phrasing"? "Specific access" or "access to something specific", really doesn't matter. Just more nitpicking. I did reply to what you said in pretty much the simplest way possible.
Again, there's no "supposedly". Screenshot shows you asking just that.
Can you please explain what that has to do with how subjective a person's acceptable standard for evidence is?
Who said it did? The point is that I can't obviously come up with DNA evidence when the source is, for all intents and purposes, unobtainable. Therefore, we use what's available, AKA historical records and the like. Standards change based on situational context.
Why have you suddenly swapped to talking about doubting the evidence, instead of about disputing the claim the evidence is trying to support? That just falls back to acceptable standards.
When did I swap? Again, what are you arguing against? You can't keep a consistent line of thought and are still resorting to nitpicking trivial details.
Okay, so I'm not at all "repeating the initial claim" by talking about almost the exact opposite; Jews pretending to be White Europeans. I'm glad we're starting to flesh this out.
You are repeating the initial claim. The "initial claim" is the claim I'm arguing against, that being that Jews are over-represented in certain areas.
What are these certain fields? When you say "they're more than likely", who are "they", specifically? And what is this available "evidence" indicating they're more than likely white?
Already stated them, no need for you to ask again. Who do you think "they" are and what do you think the "evidence" I'm referring to is? Are context clues anathema to you? Again, it's like you're purposefully ignoring half of what I say.
But you just said the claim is that they're over-represented in certain fields. "Despite being a minority" isn't part of that. Again, can we make up our minds? And are you genuinely suggesting you don't think
"Despite being a minorit"y is part of it. If they weren't a minority, no one would be bringing this issue up.
The answer is: No, 60% is not a minority.
And is a group that's 60% of the population but comprising 90% of a certain field over-represented?
The answer is: Yes, they are over-represented.
Meaning your argument that over-representation = minority therefore "if they're a minority, that must mean that there's a majority" is invalid.
So again, when did I say that 60% was a minority? The answer is no.
Nowhere did I equate "over-representation" with "minority", but again, the only reason why this is a concern for some people is because Jews are a minority. Were they not a minority, it wouldn't be a concern.
And yet you tried multiple times to frame the example I gave of dismissal into one that didn't feature dismissal.
Where? You keep claiming I said things but providing zero context.
Do you notice how you yet again failed to explain how the "entire" discussion would be moot despite the fact that the historical immigration thing is its own separate discussion that exists regardless of the initial claim?
You added "minority" again, by the way.
Why would my adding "minority" be significant? Why would I notice something that didn't happen? Again, you're not getting it. The initial argument is that Jews are over-represented in certain areas. Them being a minority is an already-known factor and doesn't require explicit stating, so you constantly referencing that as if it matters is you being disingenuous. Were Jews the majority, them being over-represented wouldn't matter, thus making the entire discussion moot.
I didn't ask if that's what you stated. I asked if you're disputing what you previously said.
Again, I didn't make the statement you're claiming I made. You not asking is irrelevant.
We have no evidence of it beyond hearsay and anecdotes; let's keep it consistent. So the timeframe we're dealing with is from the period of the Roman Empire, through to European colonization and immigration in the Americas. That's roughly 2,000 years for the population of Jewish diaspora to maintain a distinctly non-White European phenotype.
As far as I can reason, in order for your process of elimination to rule out Jews without disputing your previous claims of there being a lack of obvious phenotypical difference between Jews and White Europeans, you would need to argue that one (or both) of their phenotypes underwent a significant change to become less distinguishable. And this would have to have occurred at some point in the past...60 years, or so? After the historical immigration to the Americas already occurred, but before White Europeans would start pretending to be Jewish.
Except we do. Again, we have the modern population as evidence. Unless you can prove that the modern US population simply sprung out of the ground or otherwise magically appeared here, they logically came from previous generations of people. And if the modern population came from previous generations, the modern population would share similar genetic traits as the previous generations, correct?
Did you forget that I mentioned that some Jews did intermix with white Europeans? Clearly not since you quoted me in a later part of your response. What do you think that does in terms of genetics? However, since it likely didn't happen very often (based on previously mentioned Jewish culture/religious aversions), that would make people with partial Jewish and partial white Euro ancestry a minority.
What bearing do the advances in technology have? It's possible now for someone to test their DNA, sure, but it's hardly become a common practice, and certainly not something one could just "expect" of others without a specific reason.
Are you for real? DNA test = an advance in technology. Whether it's "hardly become a common practice" or not is irrelevant. The fact is that it is available. Why can't I expect it of others? If they're going to claim minority heritage to take advantage of the societal benefits granted to minorities, why would asking for a DNA test be a problem?
Although, in the same vein, is "colorblindness" and rejection of identity politics itself not a popular sentiment in much of the right wing? I'd expect it's much easier to pass if the people looking at you just don't care in the first place whether you're Jewish; "as long as you love America!" But the caveat there would presumably be that they don't give you preferential treatment, and that's the whole point.
"Colorblindness" is the exact opposite of what current left-oriented ideology practices. It is the notion that race/ethnicity shouldn't play a factor in the appraisal of an individual's accomplishments, qualifications, etc.
Again, consider concepts like affirmative action. Under affirmative action and similar ideas regarding "diversity", people are chosen "because they're black" or "because they're a Jew" first, with other qualifications coming second.
So again, to what end? "I can't remember"? "I don't recall"?