5846 replies to this topic

[RFS]

It's pretty simple really.

Take two figures that the left doesn't like. George W Bush and Donald J Trump. The former didn't constantly spout borderline racist comments. The latter does. GWB was rarely attacked as a racist. DJT's racism is widely discussed.

even though GWB wasn't that long ago, it was a completely different time. SJW culture hadn't permeated all aspects of modern life and people hadn't been trained to get offended by everything yet. heck mainstream 2004 opinions would be very "literally hitler" by todays standards

[jonny]

The ranked preferential ballot is going to be interesting with so many candidates.

 

Leitch and O'Leary, who are the most popular, are also the most unpopular.

 

 

https://ipolitics.ca...eadership-poll/

 

How does that impact the vote? Remember, the CPC uses a ranked preferential ballot. So, second choice candidates are going to come into play for sure.

[VicHockeyFan]

Leitch is unlikely to be many people's 2nd vote.  O'Leary is killing this thing.

[jonny]

Leitch is going to get creamed. She is going to have tons of first and last ballots.

[lanforod]

Pretty sure my 1 and 2 are Scheer and Lemieux, though I haven't researched enough yet. Really hoping the field drops to a more manageable 8 or so.

[tedward]

thats false. the left labels anyone they can't control with these attacks. they rarely require actual evidence

And welcome to the world of Trumptastic doublespeak. Anything Kevin O'Leary may or may not say is now automatically "not racist" because that label is simply a tool of, "the left". What kind of evidence do you need to identify (hypothetical) overtly racist statements?

I personally doubt he is a racist. His TV persona is an asshole IMO but just because someone has the compassion and civic-mindedness of Ayn Rand does not suggest racist tendencies.

[nerka]

even though GWB wasn't that long ago, it was a completely different time. SJW culture hadn't permeated all aspects of modern life and people hadn't been trained to get offended by everything yet. heck mainstream 2004 opinions would be very "literally hitler" by todays standards

Okay take Romney, or Paul Ryan, or Rex Tillerson, or Ted Cruz.  None exactly loved by the left. None of them have been widely tarred as racist. For that matter take Christy Clark or Brad Wall. Definitely not loved by the left. Has anyone remotely mainstream ever called them out as racist?

 

I maintain that Trump demonstrates that the best way to get tarred as a racist is to make blatantly racist statements. Heck even noted SJW Republican Speaker Paul Ryan called one of DJT's comments "the textbook definition of a racist comment".

[RFS]

Okay take Romney, or Paul Ryan, or Rex Tillerson, or Ted Cruz. None exactly loved by the left. None of them have been widely tarred as racist. For that matter take Christy Clark or Brad Wall. Definitely not loved by the left. Has anyone remotely mainstream ever called them out as racist?

I maintain that Trump demonstrates that the best way to get tarred as a racist is to make blatantly racist statements. Heck even noted SJW Republican Speaker Paul Ryan called one of DJT's comments "the textbook definition of a racist comment".

romeny and ryan were definitely called racist by the left during their campaign. clark and brad wall isn't really a good comparison becuase we don't have the same racial paradigm in Canada.
I maintain that Trump is not a racist and that taking a position against illegal immigration or even muslim immigration does not automatically make one a racist. remember before running for president no one called him racist. remember the picture of him with rosa parks and mohammed ali recieving an award for tolerance and diversity back in '86? the anti-gay claims are even more asinine. Trump did an interview with the advocate back in the 90s and more recently stood up in front if the RNC and waved a big rainbow flag. even those who don't like Trump should recognize when a baseless political attack is just that

[RFS]

Heck even noted SJW Republican Speaker Paul Ryan called one of DJT's comments "the textbook definition of a racist comment".

Ryan is no friend of Trump, believe me. you know it, i know it, everybody knows it. many such cases. SAD!

[http]

Jason-L, on 24 Feb 2017 - 07:38 AM, said:

I suppose that would depend on if what he says is, you know, racist nazi white supremacist stuff.

 

thats false. the left labels anyone they can't control with these attacks. they rarely require actual evidence

 

Relax and read Jason-L's post again, mkay?

 

edit: somehow pasted in an image by mistake.

Edited by http, 26 February 2017 - 10:13 PM.

[Greg]

[...]I maintain that Trump is not a racist and that taking a position against illegal immigration or even muslim immigration does not automatically make one a racist. remember before running for president no one called him racist.[...]

 

Well, except for the Justice Department in 1973 with the racial bias case; and lots of people in 1989 with the Central Park Five and his interview with Bryant Gumbel where he stated that an educated black man has an advantage over someone like him; and in a 1991 book where the author calls him a racist and quotes him as being worried about "black men counting my money"; and David Letterman and lots of other people when he lead the "birther" movement during the Obama administration.

 

So yeah, actually lots of people called him a racist before he ran for President. You just weren't paying attention, or didn't care, or wrote them all off as Social Justice Warriors like you do pretty much anyone who disagrees with you.

[sdwright.vic]

Until such time as you can step away from male white privilege and actually be a member of the segent of society that Trump's words, actions and policies affect, yor interpretation on if they are harmful, racist or divisive are kinda mute RFS.

[LJ]

Edited by LJ, 27 February 2017 - 08:07 PM.

[RFS]

Until such time as you can step away from male white privilege and actually be a member of the segent of society that Trump's words, actions and policies affect, yor interpretation on if they are harmful, racist or divisive are kinda mute RFS.

that is ridiculous. a therapist may not depressed themselves, should they not speak about depression? since when did was their conditions on having an opinion. that is an SJW belief system

[http]

that is ridiculous. a therapist may not depressed themselves, should they not speak about depression? since when did was their conditions on having an opinion. that is an SJW belief system

 

You're mistaking a request to look at your privilege (and how it interferes with your reasoning) with gatekeeping.

 

You're totally allowed to have opinions. But keep in mind that if you're a white male in Canada or USA, you do not have society's racism and sexism applied against you. So when taking the word of a non-white or a female against yours, I am far more likely to believe them when they say something is racist/sexist than you when you say something isn't.

 

Watch this video, RFS. You may be quizzed. https://www.youtube....h?v=hDd3bzA7450

[RFS]

"micro agressions" is speech code. it is gate keeping. its a way of controlling the discussion without debating actual facts. not good for society.

[VicHockeyFan]

"micro agressions" is speech code. it is gate keeping. its a way of controlling the discussion without debating actual facts. not good for society.

 

I agree.

[RFS]

yeah at the end of the day however the apologists try to justify it, it is authoritarian, it limits free speech, and it is used to stifle real debate (something sorely missing from our current political climate)

[sdwright.vic]

Nothing stifles debate more then a person that has not been persecuted against telling someone that has been they can't tell them anything without them being a SJW.

Man A- But what about this?
Man B- SJW

A therapist spends years in school learning about depression, believes that depression is a thing. Through learning and desire to be empathetic they earn the right to speak on depression. They are not just spewing talking point of of a political party.

Edited by sdwright.vic, 28 February 2017 - 10:00 AM.

[http]

"micro agressions" is speech code. it is gate keeping. its a way of controlling the discussion without debating actual facts. not good for society.

 

Aw, you poor crybaby. Here's a cookie, predigested: the reason I linked to the video was not to bring up microaggressions.

 

The point is that visible minorities (and women (and various other demographics)) have a fundamentally different experience in society - they have racist attitudes and actions* shoved in their face and whispered in their ear constantly whereas whites do not. It's reasonable to think that they might become adept at identifying racist attitudes and actions.

 

* and/or sexist and/or homophobic and/or...