jupiviv wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 5:43 am
Kevin Solway wrote: ↑Mon Dec 16, 2019 2:44 am
No, you're reading too much into it.
How should I read it then?
Did you see my link to the Jonathon Pie video? I was saying that if you deeply insult people, by calling them "Nazis" or "irredeemably deplorable" or whatever, then they will naturally turn against you, probably for the long term.
Trump has indeed said very bigoted and racist things about millions of immigrants, without apologising afterward.
I don't think he has. What is your definition of "racist". He naturally won't apologize if he hasn't done anything wrong.
The media has misreported what he has said, reporting his words out of context.
Compared to that, Hillary's statement is anodyne. She said half of Trumpists were deplorable because of racist/sexist views and the other half wanted positive change, and then apologised for saying "half".
I think she obviously believes that "half", or at least 30% of Trump's supporters are "irredeemably deplorable". That's why she said it. I think she was apologizing to try and reduce the damage to her election prospects.
I think she is deeply deluded about the nature of Trump supporters.
I'll only believe the media if I can verify that what they are saying is true.
Then why do you believe the right-wing media when they say things which align with your (unverified) opinions?
You'll have to be more specific. If I already have an opinion, and have verified that it is true, then what the media says doesn't make any real difference.
None of those groups - except maybe SJWs, which has no fixed definition - say all cultures and people are of equal value.
I don't agree. Many feminists, for example, argue that women are equal to men, and are of equal value to men in all regards. They argue that women are equal at sport and at work, and that men and women are mentally and physically equal, and that men and women are equal at fighting, and also that women are superior.
Marxists tend to view that all people should be equally rewarded for their work, and that one person's work is not more valuable than some other person's work.
All of the groups I mention tend to think that all cultures are of equal value, except that their own culture is superior to all others, and that other cultures should be eliminated by force.
Their "equality" is a ruse. A lie.
Trump is Comey's boss and he can sack him any time he wants.
Is this what you think is appropriate or what you think is appropriate under US law?
If he thinks that Comey is trying to undermine the democratically elected government, and has good reason to think that, then it is appropriate
that he sacks Comey. That should be appropriate under US law.
You did not make it clear what the context of the criminality itself is
Well, I said that "They are criminals, cheating innocent people out of their hard-earned money on the pretext that it is for a good cause." Generally speaking, that's not against the law because it would be impossible to implement such a law. Virtually all advertising cheats people out of their money. So I think I made it clear that I was using an extended definition of "criminality".
My point was that continually accusing a particular individual, by name, of being a criminal, and not being clear of what you mean by "criminal", and not providing any proof of criminality, is bad. Society can't function under those circumstances. It is uncivilized.