Jump to content

Are Liberals Evil? (Title is slightly sarcastic.)


Starfall

Recommended Posts

So all facts are biased and fake then? Like how can one argue against that? And what sources are reliable then? If you also don't think wikipedia is reliable then check the cited sources down below, and wikipedia is very reliable btw. But what sources can we rely on then? And how can we know they are not "biased" as you claim? 

 

It's easy to say that those you disagree with have biased facts that are controlled by some conspiracy among the "left" or among the "right". It's, however, common among both the extreme left and right to make such claims and to brush the whole thing as a case of left vs. right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pew research has looked at this and http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/europe/

 

They estimate by 2050, the population of Muslims in Europe to be 71 million, 10% of the population. 

 

According to this, the fertility rate of Muslim women in Europe is 2.1 according to pew, higher than the 1.6 of Christian women in Europe so no where near 10.

 

They also look at the effect of switching and it is marginal, 10.2% instead of 10.1% for Islam 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Wikipedia is not the best source but the article was obviously anti-Muslim. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, m4rble said:

I know Wikipedia is not the best source but the article was obviously anti-Muslim. 

And most Left sites are anti-christian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maou-sama said:

And most Left sites are anti-christian.

Anti-christian beliefs, not anti-christian people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ThaHoward said:

So all facts are biased and fake then? Like how can one argue against that? And what sources are reliable then? If you also don't think wikipedia is reliable then check the cited sources down below, and wikipedia is very reliable btw. But what sources can we rely on then? And how can we know they are not "biased" as you claim? 

 

It's easy to say that those you disagree with have biased facts that are controlled by some conspiracy among the "left" or among the "right". It's, however, common among both the extreme left and right to make such claims and to brush the whole thing as a case of left vs. right. 

Fact checkers, not facts. I know english isn't your first language, but I thought that was pretty clear.

 

Wikipedia is shit because anyone can edit the pages. Its literally no more credible than a tumblr blog with sources. There is a reason it is banned in college as a source.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, m4rble said:

Anti-christian beliefs, not anti-christian people. 

And Right wingers are not anti-people. They are anti-islam. Haven't you seen the many Right wingers advocating for middle eastern christians to get refugee status over islamic ones?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maou-sama said:

Fact checkers, not facts. I kniw english isn't your first language, but I thought that was pretty clear.

 

Wikipedia is shit because anyone can edit the pages. Its literally no more credible than a tumblr blog with sources. There is a reason it is banned in college as a source.

It's actually more accurate than an encyclopedias a lot of the time due to the high number of fact checkers. Regardless, it can be changed, and politics is so contentious it's likely one of Wikipedia's weak spots. 

 

2 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

And Right wingers are not anti-people. They are anti-islam. Haven't you seen the many Right wingers advocating for middle eastern christians to get refugee status over islamic ones?

That means they're against Muslim people. If they were just against Islam beliefs they would argue against the beliefs themselves rather than not allowing the people to have refugee status. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, m4rble said:

 

That means they're against Muslim people. If they were just against Islam beliefs they would argue against the beliefs themselves rather than not allowing the people to have refugee status. 

They tried, and were ignored in the basis of "Multiculturalism". 

 

The Right knows more about Islam than the Left does, because they have a lot in common. Most Leftists are anti-theistic. How does an Atheist say he can truly relate to a devout religious leader? They really can't. They are so devoted to their principle of fairness, it gets taken advantage of.  Left leaders exercises zero caution, and thinks everything will work out. When it blows up in their face. They blame the Right's rhetoric. They then don't see far enough ahead into cultural implications of incompatible cultures and religions. 3rd world Islam hates both Judaism and Christians with a bloody passion. What happens when you combine opposites? They will dish it out. The situation can also be blamed for the rise of Right extreamism.

 

The only thing I feel the Left is inviting in, is a culture war that they are going to lose. But hey, you can't call them racist.

 

I'm also expecting a surge in Right extreamism being elected in office in the next few years. I guess we will see together. Anyways, we've strayed iff topic and I need to reply to Starfall's post eventually. I just hate doing this on mobile. But work is slow atm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Starfall

 

Well, no wonder you don't think very highly of Leftists if you base your entire opinion of them on tumblr and twitter. This is hardly a fair assessment of anyone, right, or left.

 

Not true, I get this from most Leftists. They are not isolated incidences. I sometimes wonder if the Left has any idea what anyone else is doing. I know most people don't follow politics, so they might not be aware of the repercussions of their own movement on the large scale. 

 

Personally, I've seen far more LGBT groups and individuals who include asexuality. In fact, I don't think I've ever encountered an LGBT community member who didn't think asexuality should count as LGBT, in real life. My overall experience with the LGBT community has been positive, and inclusive, though I understand that yours has been different.

 

I was kinda shoehorned into the LGBT community. Previously, I was an extremely isolated person with zero contact with the outside world. I didn't follow politics, news, nor cared to educate myself for a very long period of time. I was mostly engrossed in Anime and videogames. I didn't give 2 fucks about anything but what I was doing. What brought me out of it, was after I had gotten out of my bad life situation and started to become a "Person". I started to flesh out my horizons. The result was discovering my strange and unusual behaviors towards sex. That resulted in me being here, but my social skills were incredibly poor, worse than poor. They were non-existent. I slowly learned how to act in a social environment. So the entirety of my experience with the LGBT community was fresh and uninfluenced by anything right winged. Because, at the time, I had no experience with politics. It wasn't even until the beginning of the presidential election that I took any interest. What logic I had when joining, was entirely raw life experience. I trust what I experienced personally, more that what people tell me. The problem with this, is that most of my life experience is in direct contrast to what the Left preaches. As someone with a lot of bad life experience, I cannot bring myself to pretend that all the shit in my life didn't happen. I know for a fact, my experiences are not isolated incidences. How I see things, were heavily influenced like that. 

 

As for it being unorganized and erratic, well yes. There is no all powerful LGBT authority who decides everything. It's just a large number of individuals with diverse opinions and ideas, trying to work together towards a common goal without a clearly defined leader. There's really no way to keep it from being unorganized, hence the differing opinions you've noticed. That doesn't mean that our goal of being treated equitably by society is not a worthy one, though.

 

They say one thing, and do another. OR their solutions are worse than they problem. They tend to have a "If I can't have it, no one can" attitude about everything. Yes, everyone has different opinions, but people should suck it up to come to a common consensus. You cannot include everyone in everything. That is just how life is.

 

Ummm.... Trump is the one calling everyone 'Fake news', not the Left. I also don't think anyone (other then the big news companies) objects tot he rise of alternative media. Personally, I prefer to get my news from the Philip Defranco show, as he always does his best to make it clear what parts of each story are fact, and what is merely his opinion. 

 

Trump didn't start the fake news narrative, and I did a bit on this forum about it somewhere. It was brought up again by the main stream media as a means to regain control of the narrative during the 2016 presidential campaign. They started calling all alternative media "fake news". Trump, after being elected, called CNN fake news and I agree with him. They are horrible liars and give journalism a bad name. PDF is a great guy, and I used to watch his stuff pretty religiously, but somewhere along the lines I realized he is just doing what I already do. Look at news, come to conclusions of own accord. 

 

I'm aware that it's a difficult goal to obtain, and I have no illusions about this being achieved within my lifetime, but that isn't the point. At one time in history, it would have seemed impossible for us to have come as far as we have. Space travel, vaccines, the internet, etc, are all things that would have seemed impossible from the perspective of a human living, even a few hundred years ago. The fact is though, we have made progress. We've even progressed socially. Back in the middle ages, you could get your head chopped off for speaking ill of the king. Nowadays, we've made huge strides towards gender equality, race equality, LGBT equality, etc. We still have a long way to go, of course, but that doesn't mean we give up. I choose to believe that a society which treats all of it's members fairly and equally is possible, because why even bother striving to achieve this, if you don't think it's possible? Don't get me wrong, I'm aware humans are selfish a**holes, but they're selfish a**holes who are capable of making progress under the right circumstances.

 

Like I said before, the dream is ok. It is the means that is the problem. I feel that the Left is going incredibly authoritarian in all of its actions. The end, doesn't justify the means. So the only future they will bring is beautiful destruction. 

 

SJW's are just people looking for things to get offended by, and really can't be said to represent the Left.

 

You say that, but you probaby know as well as I do. That their numbers are out of hand, and they are not being controlled. They are literally cancer for the Left.

 

Is it possible you've just never had anyone explain it to you in a way that made sense? I know the main thing people disagree with regarding modern feminism is the whole 'all our problems can be traced back to the patriarchy' thing. Usually, people choose to disbelieve that this is going on because they assume that it's just 'those evil, man-hating feminists, trying to blame all their problems on men', and I agree that our message has not always been clearly communicated. A large number of problems can be traced back to our current culture, which happens to be patriarchal in nature. Patriarchies and matriarchies are both systems which promote gender inequality, by giving one gender more power than the other. When one person, or group of people, has more power than another, there is always going to be the chance of that power being abused. Especially in a cultural system as old as ours, where the power imbalance is so deeply ingrained. This is what feminists have been trying to get across. The fact that our society is a patriarchy isn't the problem, it's that the power imbalance caused by one gender being dominant, leads to the other gender being treated unfairly. This problem would likely still exist, and be just as much of an issue, if our culture was a matriarchy. Really, this isn't so different from people objecting to monarchies and dictatorships. One individual having all the power results in everyone else being treated unfairly. It's why we're a democracy in the first place. 

 

I have had it explained to me many times, and know what they are talking about. I just disagree, and think their conclusions are highly illogical. Also, as someone who was big into science and biology. I know for a fact humans are a species where the males naturally take control of the group. I don't see what is so evil about this. Feminism blames everything on men, despite them just acting naturally in their environment throughout history. There will always be inequality, that is just human nature, and nature itself. Equal opportunity is the only plausible thing. Equal outcome is impossible. "Inequality" isn't a proper term either. People can have varied biological, and intellectual differences that do not make them suited for everything equally. Power will always be abused, no matter who is in charge. Feminism suffers from the same shit the Left in general suffers from. Their actions do not reflect their words. 

 

I am very much aware that this point is not always clearly communicated by modern feminists, and that the impression most people end up with, is that feminists just hate men. This is especially true if one bases their opinion of feminism on extremists on tumblr.

 

The problem is, that Feminists lumped all equality into itself. Instead of creating separate movements for each thing. So, since you guys lumped each other together, everyone else lumps extremists in with the movement. 

 

And these are things we would know if we ever got past our moral outrage and actually talked to each other. If the Left's portrayal of Rightists is exaggerated, isn't it just possible, that the right's portrayal is just as unrealistic? People on the internet may be the most interaction with Leftists you get, but you shouldn't be surprised when these interactions are far from civilized. The average Tumblr leftist probably isn't very good at getting a point across (something you, yourself should be able to understand, given the tag at the bottom of your posts) and if you never go looking for the reasonable people, you're very unlikely to find them. I'm not expecting you to admit anything here, but think about? Please? Just entertain the notion, for the sake of playing devil's advocate, that maybe the Left isn't as crazy in real life, as they appear on Tumblr.

 

The internet, I would say, is highly inhabited by majority left leaning people. Yes, both sides should talk more. BUT, the grounds of talking are non-existant. Since the Left is so erratic and irrational when it comes to debating. They are driven by morality, not logic. Even if their morality is highly illogical and flawed. I kinda blame the most recent situation on technology to be honest. It has crippled social skills for many people. 

 

Highlight the text you want to quote with your mouse. A little bubble saying 'Quote This' should pop up for you to click on. The quote should then appear wherever your cursor is in your response.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mostly Peaceful Ryan

Remember when feminist got so mad over men saying "Not all men" when they were trying to get people to teach men not to rape (Probably the dumbest idea I've heard). And now just a few years later it is the Left with "Not all Muslims". 

 

7 hours ago, m4rble said:

That means they're against Muslim people. If they were just against Islam beliefs they would argue against the beliefs themselves rather than not allowing the people to have refugee status.

Or that they are aware that Christianity is the most purescuted religion in the world and christians in particular are regularly killed by ISIS for their beliefs. Also that ISIS is particularly going after christians calling them their "favorite prey" and that many countries are denoucing it as a genocide. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

Or that they are aware that Christianity is the most purescuted religion in the world and christians in particular are regularly killed by ISIS for their beliefs. Also that ISIS is particularly going after christians calling them their "favorite prey" and that many countries are denoucing it as a genocide. 

That would be a good reason. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

Remember when feminist got so mad over men saying "Not all men" when they were trying to get people to teach men not to rape (Probably the dumbest idea I've heard). And now just a few years later it is the Left with "Not all Muslims". 

 

Or that they are aware that Christianity is the most purescuted religion in the world and christians in particular are regularly killed by ISIS for their beliefs. Also that ISIS is particularly going after christians calling them their "favorite prey" and that many countries are denoucing it as a genocide. 

Where's a little skype-bowing emoticon when you want it? :D Kudos and cake instead. :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Maou-sama said:

I know for a fact that the migrants are far more fertile than Europeans. 

No, you don't know that for a fact because it isn't a fact.   People who  belong to some religions tend to not use birth control.  That includes some Muslims (not all) and some  Catholics (not all).  It has nothing to do with their biology.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

 

Or that they are aware that Christianity is the most purescuted religion in the world 

...what?  :blink: :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, m4rble said:

Anti-christian beliefs, not anti-christian people. 

What about anti-islamic beliefs, not anti-muslim people?

 

2 hours ago, Sally said:

...what?  :blink: :lol:

It is that actually. And it's not a fun topic really. Just like the wars in Syria and Iraq and the many terrorist acts in the region and persecution of all kinds of ethnic and religious groups. Outside of USA and Europe Christians face persecuation and genocide and terrorism. This have led to them being the most persecuted religious group in the world - including the west. The world is not the same as USA, and even if you think it's an aggressive religion it don't make it so. Especially it do not make it that it is indeed the most persecuated religion. 

 

If you don't believe me: 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-james-clark/christianity-most-persecuted-religion_b_2402644.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/14/christians-most-persecuted-group-in-world-as-vicious-attacks-grow.html

 

And these are just a few newssites addressing the issue. Then of course we have the UN who do the same, several non profit organizations etc..

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sally said:

No, you don't know that for a fact because it isn't a fact.   People who  belong to some religions tend to not use birth control.  That includes some Muslims (not all) and some  Catholics (not all).  It has nothing to do with their biology.  

Yes I do. Even your beloved fact check site agrees. Fertility refers directly to the ability to have kids, along with birth rate of an ethnic group.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah they often come from deeply agrarian and nomadic societies where high birth rate is the norm for obvious reasons. But generations after that normalise their birthrates as they adapt to the industrial society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThaHoward said:

Yeah they often come from deeply agrarian and nomadic societies where high birth rate is the norm for obvious reasons. But generations after that normalise their birthrates as they adapt to the industrial society.

That is operating under the assumption they will normalize at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you mean by normalized integrated, most do that after a generation or two. However they don't assimilate. But most adapt their lifestyles to modern society. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ThaHoward said:

What about anti-islamic beliefs, not anti-muslim people?

What about it? Being anti-Islamic beliefs would just be criticizing those beliefs and not wanting them to influence society. There is nothing wrong with that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maou-sama said:

That is operating under the assumption they will normalize at all.

Because you're so worried for Germany, I can assure you that the birth rate of immigrants in Germany has gone down for 40 years, it had about 2,5 children per immigrant and now it's at 1,6.

 

Also, there are no "No-Go-Areas" in Germany and you can grow up perfectly fine with lots of immgrants as I did. In my hometown we had about 30% with a migration background and surprise, I'm a) still alive b) left because it doesn't fucking matter what your neighbour looks like. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't see any mentions of no go areas... but actually there are several areas in Sweden where police, fire department and paramedics can't go as they risk their own lives. There's also many immigrants who had to flee to Somalia or seek refuge in other parts of Sweden as they were victim of the social police there (betraying culture, not being a good muslim etc). It look like a bad joke, but it's actually true. It's also a practical example of too great concentration in particular places and too liberal policies. When the Swedish public were made aware of this, as it were covered up, they turned from the most liberal in terms of immigration to one of the most restrictive in Europe..

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Maou-sama said:

Yes I do. Even your beloved fact check site agrees. Fertility refers directly to the ability to have kids, along with birth rate of an ethnic group.

What fact check site would that be?  Asking since I don't have one.  

 

Fertile:

Oxford dictionary:  (of a person, animal, or plant) able to conceive young or produce seed.

Cambridge dictionary:  biology (of people or animals) able to produce young

 

Nothing about birth rate.  Birth rate is demographics, not biology.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sally said:

What fact check site would that be?  Asking since I don't have one.  

 

Fertile:

Oxford dictionary:  (of a person, animal, or plant) able to conceive young or produce seed.

Cambridge dictionary:  biology (of people or animals) able to produce young

 

Nothing about birth rate.  Birth rate is demographics, not biology.  

We are not talking about the definition of fertile, we are talking about the fertility rate of immigrants vs the native population. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ChillaKilla

Fertility rate is the average number of children per woman age (15-44)

Birth rate is the number of live births per 1000 people each year

 

Now can we keep the thread moving?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lonemathsytoothbrushthief

Because this thread is so dense and fell to the inevitable-it completely blew up by the looks of it-I'm just going to lay out my position and see if anyone replies to discuss or address some of the issues I see in leftist circles(btw I'm left and no political party will completely satisfy me :unsure: ). If not, well I'll just watch and see who manages to get some points which don't obsess about overpopulation(a right-wing talking point which lacks nuance and distracts from the reasons why many people don't have proper food and shelter) etc.

My understanding of liberalism is that it is a form of intersectionality trying to address feminism, equality for people of colour, LGBT+ people etc at the same time as completely avoiding addressing the problems which relate to how capitalism drives these types of inequality. You can see that in how it actually does focus more on how feminism affects white women, rich LGBT+ people, etc. I mean, would Buzzfeed ever interview a Northern Irish woman who couldn't afford to take the ferry to England to get an abortion? Not likely, because the people on it are probably, unfortunately, fairly close to middle class. This is the reason why I do in fact dislike it, and am inclined towards anarcho-feminism where I view capitalism as a system which generates wealth inequality, which then causes power imbalances which also cause the government to typically represent the wealthier members of its citizens, and the fact that the system causes power to be held by a small number of people makes it important for them to divide the working classes so they don't notice, on the basis of race, gender, sexuality etc. I'm pretty sure a lot of people will hate this view, but I'm in this far so am prepared for it :P

However the people who make up liberals aren't actually bad. I think I could agree with them on their goals most of the time, it's just that there are situations where issues start being too close to politics which they completely fail to address. For example I think it's fair to say the approach to Islam has been bad on both sides: firstly, I will not accept anyone who makes any claim that of all religions, Islam is somehow inherently worse. It is strongly tied to a political background and can't be separated from that. This means I have to be a little frustrated as an atheist <_< however, now onto the liberal response to this. I also agree that responding with what muslims might say is the view of women there is slightly irritating. It should be fine to complain about the restrictions which women face in Saudi Arabia, but also not think there's something particularly wrong with Islam.

Stepped on a landmine, arrrrrrrgh :o but it seems this was being discussed a lot, and most comments seem to only slightly address this. Anyway, I think power and wealth inequality in society drives a lot of the issues which people blame on muslims. Anyway, I think now that my understanding of which issues deserve to be most focused on is around which have the most popular support or are threatened the most, and since most people really don't know anything about socialism(probably not helped by liberals), at present I don't see much point in talking about class struggle. Especially not in Britain. So I'm probably going to be doing stuff with liberals-for example I went to a protest against the DUP party in London together with the London Irish abortion rights campaign, and though I may not share their views on capitalism, we were all in support of giving better access to abortion to people in NI. Liberals imo are good, because they are sincerely trying to combat real inequality in our society. However liberalism isn't AS good. In a country like the US, where things like foreign policy and climate change really need to be addressed, people who behave like prejudice and wealth inequality can be separated are actually a problem. They just don't have enough power for us to claim they're actually a big problem, because every right wing movement ever is actually CAUSING this stuff.

Basically I think we need to support equality regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexuality, faith AND where in the socioeconomic ladder you're born. See the following for something which can only be addressed if we add wealth inequality to the list of things which liberalism actually addresses(which would mean a major shift to the left unfortunately :( ):
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Touchofinsight

Everyone has the same capacity for evil within them although some people definitely embrace and are displaying this capacity more then others.

 

One of the worst things that all people of political ideologies do today (this is especially commmon among those who are described as social justice warriors) is refuse to have a conversation and exchange ideas in a rational debate.

 

Virtue signaling and name calling have become the substitutes for proper conversation. Instead of agreeing to disgaree the tactics now have become silence and destroy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lonemathsytoothbrushthief
4 hours ago, Touchofinsight said:

Everyone has the same capacity for evil within them although some people definitely embrace and are displaying this capacity more then others.

 

One of the worst things that all people of political ideologies do today (this is especially commmon among those who are described as social justice warriors) is refuse to have a conversation and exchange ideas in a rational debate.

 

Virtue signaling and name calling have become the substitutes for proper conversation. Instead of agreeing to disgaree the tactics now have become silence and destroy.

The thing is that the way in which this is done by actual social justice warriors, ie people who actually go out there and protest, volunteer in campaigns etc has considerably more nuance than what you are claiming. I hope I made a distinction between liberals and other leftists/activists fairly obvious: liberals take the issues of the rich just as seriously, so name calling your manager when you're angry and saying something like bitch, is jumped on as much as, or really in my opinion, more than scapegoating immigrants for claiming benefits and calling them racial slurs. The "social justice warriors are evil" talking point is not the one in this forum, but rather the talking point of the alt-right who would rather homogenise every person who ever tries to change systemic injustice. Social justice warriors(aka people who want to change things via signing petitions, turning up to protests or just being generally political online-my facebook is used almost exclusively for this because it's my main interest) don't generally do this. Liberals are more likely to, because they see the problems in society, but fail to register in their actions who they hit hardest. This language CAN be abused by managers looking to climb up the ladder, or celebrities looking for a bit more fame. Not because these people are women, or black, or because some systemic injustices don't exist, but because by being a celebrity or a manager(or white or cishet as well) they are already privileged enough to avoid most of the effects of it. But if you're serious about trying to make society better, this should be obvious.

Also, because of the alt-right, it's far more likely at present I think for someone to gain fame or repute by saying they feel there is systemic oppression against white people, men, cis people etc anyway so a lot of the problems from liberals are no where near as serious as those from these sorts of people. And the reason why the people who repeatedly say these things often don't get debates with leftists and activists, is because the message they are spreading isn't exactly honest. There's a good video I watched on youtube from someone who said that, if someone maintains their talking points after you repeatedly give them evidence to prove otherwise, you have to wonder if the message they're trying to get across isn't that white people, or men, or cis people, or cishets, are oppressed, and if that's not the real message they're trying to deliver, why should you debate them on it? I think a lot of the time the real message isn't that certain oppressions don't exist, but rather that it's okay for those people who aren't affected by them to actively hate and discriminate against those who try to point it out to them. I actually don't mind, to a certain extent, responding to people who say for example that women aren't oppressed because of alimony, because it's a more covert message if the person does truly hate women for no reason, but otherwise it's something I can provide information on and see if they accept my point. But someone who says that feminists just want women to be more powerful than men, or soon the traditional family will have completely disintegrated, is just ridiculous to me, trying to spread under a message which would take time to answer fully, and isn't worth debating.

Still. Using language around left wing issues doesn't get good responses anyway, and I have to wonder how many people are sneering at some of the wording I use, just because they don't have the same interests, and I've been interested in this for so long. Btw my interest in this started in finding out about biases in the diagnoses given to people by psychiatrists, and worrying about how this could personally affect me, it's not superficial though there are still many things I don't personally relate to. I think a lot of the people the right call SJWs have too many personal reasons for having gotten involved to be able to handle someone whose arguments are based on denying those same issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...