CRed05

you are getting used.

 

Tucker Carlson uses South Africa to feed the fear that white people are under attack, president sees the piece and uses it as an opportunity to appeal to his hard core base. Neither have any honest intention to help the situation in South Africa. Promising to study something is literally the least amount of commitment the executive branch can give to anything.

 

Maybe a more diplomatic and world collaborative president would be able to leverage the US into a position to influence the South African government, but diplomatic he ain't. Let's just see if this kicked over rock turns up anything at all, my money is on it won't.

Right, looking into something doesn't mean a whole lot, but I'm hopeful that it will lead into something that will prevent the SA government from continuing their bullshit. SA's currency's value did dropped against the dollar after Trump sent out that tweet, and it's back to almost a record low because of this issue and because of the situation with Turkey.

I honestly don't care what his motivations are. If he's doing it to get his "hard core base" worked up, so be it if something good comes from it. At the very least, it raises awareness.

Do you really think his supporters didn't think he was banging porn stars and playmates or escorts?

I don't care that Clinton was getting blowies in the WH, I just care that he lied about it. I don't care that Trump was banging prozzies, he lied about it and paid money to influence the election. Doesn't matter if people would've voted for him anyway, we don't know that and neither did he, but he tried to keep it quiet just in case.

It's too bad because he finally tweeted something last night that could turn me into a supporter if he handles it right.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1032454567152246785

Honestly, reading some of the comments on there makes me never want to vote Democrat ever again.

Getting around Columbus became easier on Aug. 20, 1975, when the final stretch of the I-270 Outerbelt — 2.3 miles between Hamilton Road and E. Broad Street — opened.

 

The speed limit, set after the gasoline crisis of 1973, was a federally mandated, gas-saving 55 mph. In 1991, the state General Assembly started tearing down the speed barrier, upping it to 65 on freeways outside city limits, including parts of I-270.

 

The ring around the city provided a less-congested way for through-traffic on I-70 and I-71 to negotiate the city and opened thousands of acres of farmland to development.

 

Even before it was finished, dozens of office buildings sprang up on the northern and eastern stretches, and the southern part, particularly around Rickenbacker Airport, became a distribution hub, home to numerous warehouses.

 

Planning began in the 1950s, and construction in 1962. Initial plans called for the north stretch to run near Morse Road through the Ohio School for the Deaf property, but that line was moved north of Worthington before construction started.

 

The federal government paid 90 percent of the project’s $175 million cost and stipulated that each bridge be at least 15 feet 6 inches tall — the clearance needed for an intercontinental ballistic missile on a truck. Interstate highways are funded as military roads, designed to move troops and equipment quickly in the event of attack.

 

On the day the freeway opened, Dispatch columnist Dick Otte told readers not to bother trying to be the first person to circumnavigate the Outerbelt; he had already done it twice — once in each direction.

 

The full Outerbelt, which was mostly four lanes then, was 55?miles long all the way around on the inner lane and 55.5 miles on the outer one. Otte said it took him 61 minutes on the inner lanes and 30?seconds longer on the outer ones.

 

“It also is a surprisingly scenic route, partially because of a large number of undeveloped grassy and wooded areas visible from the highway,” he wrote 37 years ago.

http://www.dispatch.com/news/20120820/columbus-mileposts--aug-20-1975-i-270-gave-alternative-way-to-get-around-city

Interesting that it almost didn't go as far north as it does today.

old mercedes

Aahh yes, I know that interior well. My step dad had a W123 but of course for me it looked more like this:

(right hand drive, but seats were perforated)

I do remember not liking it as much as my dad's 16V Jetta as a kid, even then I thought it felt like an old man car I guess. The seats were for sure very springy compared to any other car I've ever been in and the goofy parking brake lever next to the steering wheel = lols #memories #deutcheautosuberalles

I must not be old enough yet to appreciate MB interiors :barf:

Engineering Explained dude talked about expensive cars and reliability a bit

You say the fewer the better but then you say some are necessary. If we get rid of the necessary ones, isn't that fewer? And therefore better?

 

See my point?

Sure.

Just because it was good to regulate one thing, doesn't mean we now need to start regulating everything. Also don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I hate this saying though. What does "as little as possible" even mean? Who are these people we're arguing against who are calling for unnecessary regulation? Are there people writing regulations just for funsies?

 

Every regulation seems absolutely necessary to somebody. We need to clearly define the metrics that we want to use to define what makes America successful, and we need to measure every regulation against whether or not it results in better or worse outcomes based on those metrics. If that ultimately means a "lot" of regulations, then I guess a lot of regulations are necessary. If it ultimately means not very many regulations, then so be it. (At this point, I know several posters who are thinking, "Of course fewer regulations will result in better outcomes," believing that without evidence of course).

I suppose I'm calling out the people in the pole saying to "socialize all the things" because they believe in it so much.

Well I truly believe that the fewer regulations the better. Fewer regulations means more freedom for you and I, freedom to innovate, freedom to compete...a level playing field. If a new regulation comes out, you have to ask where it's coming from and what is the purpose of it. Regulations will put one person down and lift another up. Some regulations are necessary or we'd all just be hosts for the massive amounts of cancer growing on us from chemicals and radiation vented into the atmosphere.

You are saying "governments" as in all governments fuck things up and can't be trusted...just like all dry cleaners fuck things up, not one particular one. It's funny, you distrust all governments because of the actions of a few but you don't distrust all dry cleaners because of the fuck ups of a few. You are more forgiving of a dry cleaner where you have almost no control over the process beyond selection, than you do a government where you do have some ability to affect the process if you want to. If you don't like a government that you feel is fucking things up, you can choose another government by either electing different politicians or moving. That last one? that's called immigration and seems real popular to talk about these days.

Well do you trust the government today? The Trump administration? Could you imagine what it would be like if they had even greater control over your life? You and I both didn't want Trump to win, but he did, so in a way we had no control over who won even though we voted. At least all the dry cleaner will do is fuck up my favorite shirt, not confiscate my land because it's owned by the state now.

So the moving thing hits close to home. People love to tell white people in South Africa to just move out of Africa if you're tired of the crime and bullshit. It's incredibly difficult. First of all, any country worth moving to requires a reason for you to come in. "I'm coming here to look for a job" doesn't fly. Second, you need a big chunk of money. Lastly, "why should I change my name, he's the one who sucks!"

And yet Historically, governments are continually striving for improvement, and even offering incentives to get people to assist in offering the best services. But that's the mundane crap that doesn't get talked about. The existence of Soldier Pensions, the GI bill, and VA healthcare all seem boring compared to the sacking of Rome or the crusades. Profit is not the only incentive, and sometimes it's the worst kind of incentive (see current pharmaceutical system) - Profit and a beneficial system to the end user are not connected concepts.

That's right. The Soviet Union wanted to be the best country in the world, so did Nazi Germany, so does Mexico, so do Venezuela, so does Zimbabwe so does North Korea. Constantly coming up with improvements. Trump wants to make a lot of improvements too, he even wrote it on a hat.

Not for nothing, but people looking at the history of capitalism is why socialism and communism exist. People got fed up with poor working conditions, ravaged environments, and lack of social equity.

 

The success of capitalism can't be ignored, that's true, but to say that it's a system that results in "greatness" only works for certain definitions of greatness. At its core, it's just a system that self selects for maximum economic efficiency. Whether or not we want maximum economic efficiency is still a matter that should be debated on a case by case basis. Certainly, economic efficiency results in lots of affordable goods (a rising tide lifts all boats, as conservatives love to say), but what if those are fishing boats and there's a limited supply of natural resources? In unregulated capitalism, the fishermen would try and out-compete each other until there were no fish left, at which point they'd all starve. That doesn't sound like greatness to me, nor to the fisherman, who have generally supported fishing quotas in the interest of long term survival. Quotas which need to be debated by politicians, documented by lawyers, and enforced by a strong government, of course.

Well we've had enough history now to see both capitalism and communism and are able to measure the pros and cons and see which is the best (not perfect) model.

Of course you need regulations, but you have to do it as little as possible - only when it's absolutely necessary. It's better to cut your hair too long than too short.

Because the alternative sucks? I mean, Reagan's "Government is the problem" was pretty successful marketing to the moron demographic but let's be honest, it's a lot easier to complain about society than to offer up suggestions for how to improve it. If we consider government a necessary evil, keep a close eye on it and make sure we're collecting good data to ensure it's working, that's really all we can ask for.

 

Electing a bunch of anti-science, anti-intellectual troglodytes who rail against government while refusing to consider actual "evidence" of things that "work" or "don't work" isn't any better at ensuring liberty. That's how you end up with brown kids in cages and people believing that it's Clinton's fault. But I digress.

I'm with you 100%. In my ideal world, everyone would be intellectual and know everything about science and always make the right decisions. Unfortunately for us all, that's just not how life works. People make mistakes and in a democracy elect corrupt assholes into power.

The law that just recently passed in Florida, about schools now having to have "In God We Trust" displayed on school premises. If we had one socialized school system, every school in America would have to get that displayed, and there's nothing you could do about it because the government said so and all districts would be the same. There's a good chance that 1) There are no more private schools because of laws or they couldn't compete 2) Taxes are so high now that you can't afford another school.

Parents have a long history of mismanaging and fucking kids up, so why trust them with kids?

Shit parents are a tiny % of the overall parent population. I bet there have been much more shit governments than good ones.

Dry Cleaners have a long history of mismanaging and fucking shirts up, so why would I trust them with laundry?

In the free market, if you go to a consistently shitty dry cleaner, you have the option, and are free to not take your clothes there anymore and take it somewhere else.

Arbys restaurants have a long history of mismanaging and fucking my order up, so why would I trust them with lunch?

In the free market, if you go to an Arbys that keeps fucking up your order, you have the option, and are free to not eat at Arbys anymore and eat somewhere else.

Popes have a long history of mismanaging and fucking things up, so why would I trust them with the worlds largest land holder and a following of 1.3 billion people?

You shouldn't. Religion is bullshit, it's a way of governing people based on fairy tales and the pope is the king/president. They claim they're doing God's work, doing it for the people, but they're just there to have power over others.

Government institutions have no need to offer the best service or product, especially when it's the required to use their service by law and you have no other option. Competition breeds greatness, survival of the fittest. It's not even Economics 101, it's Life 101.

But don't just take my word for it, just look at history.

it's a mismanaged fuck up of a government.

That's the problem! Governments have a long history of mismanaging and fucking things up, so why would I trust them with anything?

There are a handful of countries killing it right now in socialized healthcare and education. Mostly German and Scandinavian countries, where taxes are crazy expensive, but quality of life seems high, a trade off I think I'm personally willing to make...until an incompetent government gets in power. At least here we have the 2nd amendment to protect us, no other country does.

What about all of those Western European and Asian countries that have embraced certain aspects of socialism and are doing just fine? Are they gonna grow out of it too?

That's right, just like the US, they have adopted a social program here and there but they aren't without their downsides. You hand over a little bit of your freedom and ability to make a choice each time a new social program is adopted.

What about all the other countries than went full on, balls to the wall socialists that aren't doing so well? Are you aware of what's happening in Venezuala right now?

https://www.cato.org/blog/venezuela-biggest-humanitarian-crisis-you-havent-heard

This is concerning. Discuss:

 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/13/politics/democrats-nervous-gallup-poll-analysis/index.html

They're still young and a lot of them will grow out of it as they get into the real world and mature (fingers crossed). Socialism is complicated and there are many levels to it that I'm sure no one in that poll fully understands. They probably think of free healthcare and university, which is fine, but then stops there. Not realizing all the complications that go with it and how shitty things can get.

Now he's thinking about buying the Crew.

Just finished talking with @markwahlberg about his new car dealership. I asked him if he’d be interested in buying the @ColumbusCrewSC. He said he would and would look into it. #SaveTheCrew

Explain this. what laws ignore diversity?

So with diversity I mean accepting that we are all different and certain traits are more common in certain races or between the sexes. In other words, that you won't see a lot of women in a construction job that requires you to swing a 20lb hammer around all day, or why native Americans were used in building skyscrapers because they have less of a fear, or are able to control their fear of heights better. So it's silly to want to put laws in place that say you need an equal amount of men and women swinging heavy hammers, equal amount of races walking on steel beams 100s of ft above the city, or equal amount of all the races in the NBA (or even a proportionate amount to population). Maybe whitey is just a little better at being an accountant than everyone else.

Education and opportunity comes first, the rest will sort itself out.

That's right, and you said that income is the problem for most when it comes to education. Offer help to those that don't have the income and base it on income only...throw race out the window.

What you are describing to some degree though might be more affected by something that is not racially motivated - the peter principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle#The_Peter_Principle

The basic idea is that people are often promoted into their incompetence, and while a lot has been done to mitigate this - it's still prevelant in all areas of business. It's an easy thing to blame affirmative action for, esp since there is a racial promotion bias that affirmative action tries to address, but the reality is if you keep promoting people eventually they will reach a level of job that exceeds their skill and that has nothing to do with race. BTW, it's not just single company promotion we are talking about but also job hopping defacto promotion.

I can agree with that.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/gina-crosleycorcoran/explaining-white-privilege-to-a-broke-white-person_b_5269255.html

From the article, you know you're privileged when "“I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.”"

Oh Jeesus H Christ. Then why don't you move to a place where that's true. Oh, because it fucking sucks over there? You were privileged enough to get the fuck out or live in a country that's not up to it's neck in poverty, crime and unemployment.

The majority of my family sees a face like theirs 8 out of 100 times yet are still called privileged, their job applications moved to the back of the pile, gets a shitty education because the bar has been lowered, has to deal with times during the day when they don't have electricity because the fuckers in charge don't know how to run a company(How you manage to bankrupt a company that has a monopoly on electricity is amazing). It's still their fault though that unemployment is at 27% and most people are poor, so now they'll take their land because all else has failed to make everyone rich.

I am not talking fewer overall, I mean fewer percentage wise relative to their population.

Right, but you see it as the whiteman holding everyone down, where I see it as not everyone wants to go get an education, take the time to learn a skill, do what is considered by western standards a successful person.

I was shooting the shit with a buddy of mine who owns a big concrete company here in Columbus. He was telling me how it sucks for them to get reliable help. From what he was saying, they pay well and offer benefits which is supposedly rare in that line of work, yet they have to stop providing direct deposit to a lot of employees because once the money hits their account at midnight on Friday, they decide to not show up for work and you might not see them again until Monday or Tuesday. So forcing them to come in on Friday to pickup their checks prevents them from saying fuck it, I have some cash now lets get fucked up at the bar all weekend. He'd love to just fire them all but it's hard to find people.

My point with that little story is that a lot of people just don't give a shit, or don't have the ability to think about the future. They live in the now. They have a paycheck, now its time to spend it, when the money is low or gone, then they'll put just enough effort in to get another check.

I hate to even use the term SJW, but SJWs like to always be on about how we need to celebrate diversity, yet to want to put in rules, regulations and laws to level everything and go against nature and ignore diversity.

The standard that usually gets discusses is an equal percentage in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example if there are 100 white kids, 20 black kids, 20 Hispanic kids and 60 other races and 50% of them go to college then your class should be 50 white kids 10 black kids, 10 hispanic kids and 30 other races - and that's ok because they are all 50% of their respective population. Where it gets troubling is when you look at enrollment and it's 80 white kids, and 5 black kids, and 2 hispanic kids, and 10 others because now you have 80% white, 25% black, 10% hispanic, and 30% other races - not an equal proportion.

So the equal proportion thing is just madness, and it sounds like you aren't fully on-board with that idea, which is good. It's whats in-place in SA as BEE. All it has done is drive small businesses either out of the country or forced them to shut down (My cousin's design agency moved with him to the Americas, my uncle just said fuck it and closed his post-retirement electronics repair gig). Large corporations (private or government) are so in dept and rife of corruption because they aren't managed by people who deserve to be there. It also causes a brain drain out of the country, which goes back to that average IQ of 70 thing.

I don't think you understand Affirmative Action. It isn't a handout or a requirement to hire an unqualified person. It actually stems back to FDR's administration as a way to prevent employers from blacklisting union employees. I am not super thrilled at Affirmative Action because it is a band aid fix for a much larger systemic problem, but it does work as a shortcut to get QUALIFIED minorities opportunities that would more often go to their white counterparts.

 

By the way one positive legislation that favors opportunity to minorities is a drop in the bucket to the thousands of laws that were written to disadvantage minorities for hundreds of years.

I think I understand it, and so do you because you realize that it's a band-aid fix. It might not bring in completely unqualified people, but it's not giving the job to THE BEST qualified person. It's racist and causes problems as I mentioned above.

To fix it requires 2 things IMO. The ethnic groups in question need to first help themselves by realizing the problem and fixing it within their own culture and communities. As a society, we need to provide equal educational opportunities for all those who can't afford it, no matter your race. But the old saying is true, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force them to drink.

Asian cultural success is a myth. As in not true. It's one of those stereotypes that people who want to ignore racial disparity in this country choose to believe but the numbers seldom bear out.

 

http://fortune.com/2018/06/04/asian-americans-model-minority-asian-glass-ceiling/

Right out of that article: "As a demographic cohort, they’re 5% of the population, yet 12% of the workforce, and outpace other groups in terms of education and income."

Now I agree it's a shitty stereotype to have because it does create glass ceilings for Asians, you might call it Asian-Privilege. Which is the same problem I have with white-privilege.

What facts? you haven't proposed any facts other than to state that you believe there isn't a racial disparity and you believe a lot of stereotypes.

The facts being the numbers and figures when it comes to everyone's slice of the pie where they sit in society - income, crime, education, etc. Like I said in my "opening statement" (:dumb:), you see those numbers as whitey holding everyone back, I see it as just the way the everyone fits into the puzzle.

Oh yeah? ever try to register a kid at a school for which he doesn't live in the district? It isn't easy or cheap.

Well so there are 2 things I have to say about that.

First, that's the downside of having a socialistic-ish school system. You need to go to the district that you pay taxes to and if you don't want to you need to go through a whole process, because nothing is free.

Second, that is true for all kids. My GF is going through that right now, her kids have always gone to school in a different district and they might get booted next year.

false conclusion. It would mean there were fewer at the table, which there are. There are always outliers and exceptions. There used to be almost none, and then we started to work on this issue around 1964 or so, so now there are some, but not as many as there should be.

Well there are fewer at the table mainly because they are a smaller % of the population. Maybe there are fewer because it's not something a lot of non-whites and Asians strive for. I'd like to hear from black people on here, but how likely are you to be criticized for acting or talking white, get your ass kicked or made fun of if all you are trying to do is get educated and work towards a successful future?

How many exactly "should" there be?

where are you getting this from? From my standpoint what people are asking for are opportunities. Take the

Affirmative action, Black Economic Empowerment, Land expropriation without compensation. Zimbabwe went through the whole cycle, South Africa is just about there. It always starts with equal...The Ant and the Grasshopper.

So black people are lazy then? is that what you are saying? because they don't want to get up to that table?

No, not lazy. Asian (including Indian) cultures seem to really drive towards working your ass off to get into high paying professions. Next tier I'd throw in white culture, less than Asians but more than blacks and hispanics.

Again this comes down to whether you believe the odds are different based on race. You don't believe it to be so, and there is a lot of evidence that disagrees with you. Also almost all of American history as well. I can't force you to be more knowledgeable about this issue, but I don't have to accept your opinion as remotely based in fact either.

People are too afraid of sounding racist than to accept the facts for what they are. We can all agree that the data shows that black people have a lower income, but we can't seem to agree to why that is. Would you deny the figures that show that countries with high white and Asian populations have higher IQs than countries that dont? South Africa has an average IQ of 70...excuse my language but that's just about fucking retarded. No wonder it went from being a top level function country, with great infrastructure to just another failed African state in 20 years.

https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php

Think of it like this - the world is a casino, and white people are playing blackjack, Roulette, or craps table - highest payout and highest odds for winning, but minorities are stuck playing Wheel of Fortune or slot machines - odds of winning are much lower and even when there is a payout it's more likely to be less. Not everyone playing it going to win, but those playing the better games and going to get more opportunity. And they get to play better games because those in charge of the different areas of the casino took efforts to make sure whites play only or mostly the good games and other races don't.

There is nothing preventing non-whites from going to sit down at the blackjack table. If that was true, there would be not a single non-white at that table. What a lot of people seem to want is to not only let them sit at the table, but give them a payout no matter what cards they hold.

Only thing that prevents anyone from sitting at the blackjack table that wasn't born there is not wanting to get up. Don't forget, just because you are born at the blackjack table, doesn't mean you can't bust.

Let me ask you this: Do you think White Privilege exists in America?

If yes, then we are just debating to what shade and what root cause. In the case of Brandon, based on what he posts, I don't think he believes it exists at all, which is what prompted the post you are replying to. It's one thing to debate the severity of a known problem, it's another entirely to debate it's existence. based on your comments before about living in South Africa, I belive you think it exists, but base on ones you make here I am not so sure now.

I started typing out a whole thing, then I had to go to a meeting and now I'm not in the mood, but...

Today in America, I do not believe racial privilege exists. There are no laws that say a white person is allowed to have or do something others cannot. I can however point out to laws that say the opposite.

We are all born with privileges and advantages that others do not have. That's life, it's not fair. I wasn't born into a rich family despite being white, I wasn't gifted the same genes that make Michael Phelps a good swimmer, or LeBron sweet at Basketball, or what made Steven Hawking a brilliant physicist.

In South Africa when I was born, I could make the argument that I was a bit privileged based on the fact that for between 1st and 2nd, maybe 3rd grade I had to go to a white only school, where most black schools provided a poor education (not all, and it's still true today). So I could make the argument that I had no privilege at all.

There is a black South African family that lives here in Columbus that we know. They are my parents age, so they lived through apartheid in a way only them and my parents would know. They are wealthier than most people I know, despite having "black-unprivilege". Shit, even the poor, forever struggling Nelson Mandela somehow managed to become a lawyer.

How often were you hassled by the police when you were just driving around?

https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings/

Do blacks not commit more crime than any other race? [Google it]

How likely were you to be tazed/shot by the police when you were stopped?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/do-police-kill-more-whites-than-black-people/

See above

How much easier was it to find a job?

https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf

This specific study is based on names that "don't sound white" or foreign. In other words, hard for Americans to pronounce. I'd like to throw my last name in that mix and I'm willing to bet I fall in the no callback pile.

how hard was it for you to open a bank account or get a credit card?

https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/race-age-gender-statistics.php

Do black people not tend to have shittier credit and lower income? [Google it]

How hard was it for you to get hired for what you were worth?

https://www.aauw.org/aauw_check/pdf_download/show_pdf.php?file=The-Simple-Truth

Women's pay growth stop outpacing men around age 30, when they just so happen to start families. Throw sports in the mix, and we can talk about how female athletes just don't generate the revenue.

https://cdn-payscale.com/content/PS_Gender_Infographic_625.png

He's not "extreme" in his views so much as he is another source of consistently false information which can be looked at as a different form of "extremeism".

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/louder-with-crowder/

https://www.snopes.com/tag/steven-crowder/

https://www.snopes.com/tag/louder-with-crowder/

 

Not a lot of info there...but the first link on snopes comes back as 'True'.

I get that no media pundit doing opinion commentary is completely bias free or accurate, but come on...why are conservatives so accepting of such complete charlatans?

 

Steven Crowder is entertaining to watch but part of what makes it entertaining is it's laughably ridiculous on a fundamental level.

And that's why I'm against all this. We're trying to enforce regulation and shit based on feelings. The left was to blame for Trump being in the white house, and I feel like I'm now being forced to defend a fuckhead like Alex Jones.

Speaking of bias, that very Vox video edited clips from these "extremists" to say things out of context that are completely factual, to sound like crazy racists.

Here we go

Alex Jones is just the tip of the iceberg. Labeling someone like Crowder 'extreme'

That's actually not true. Porn is notoriously difficult to determine and the gray area is quite wide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio

 

under your definition Botticelli's The Birth of Venus is considered pornography. Same with the venus de milo, Michelangelo's David, etc...

Which is why I thew nudity in there too. I haven't read their porno clause in their terms of service, but I'd imagine nudity is a key deciding factor.

Here is what I don't like about this statement - you are implicitly accepting Alex Jones as mainstream conservatism for the purpose of making your "bias" argument. don't do that. don't legitimize what is clearly a stand alone fringe organization. I agree there is bias, the bias is against Alex Jones and largely his bullshit conspiracy theories, but don't pretend like this is the left coming after the right. This is society regulating itself without government intervention, for as much a libertarian as AJ is himself - he is getting a taste of his own medicine when the mob turns against.

 

Also, nice whataboutisim. You are claiming a double standard, but I don't see a "double standard" so much as I see a singling out on the nail sitting the highest.

I'm not saying he's mainstream and I don't think it should matter - equal rights for all. You keep talking about free market, but if it was truly a free market, then he wouldn't get any views on his channel, therefor wouldn't get paid by YouTube or sponsors and would simply fizzle out by himself.

Where did I do a whataboutism? That's a fair comparison given the argument, I think.

Except gay isn't a protected class, and the US hasn't figured out how to properly deal with intersex (which is a real medical condition, BTW), so that wouldn't help him. I think what you wanted to say was he should turn black, but didn't.

My tongue in cheek remark is aimed at progressives who shout about shop owners denying to make cakes for gay couples getting married, but in the same breath think it's ok to deny social media service to people with different opinions than them. Race doesn't apply here, no matter how hard you seems to always want to drag it into everything.

And just to be clear, you're an asshole if you deny someone cakes based on sexual preference.

Intersex is a real condition, but your sex can still be determined.