Trump is a smart politician. He’ll start off pro Israel to feed his base, and later give the Muslims stuff to keep them on his side. Too bad he’s the last smart politician and after him the Muslims will easily take over politically.
I should be able to call Haitians savages as long as I can do so in a non-lazy way and provide argumentation for my point. If I can't even do that, then this forum is not what I judged it to be.
[reply to a few articles about people being arrested after defacing Pride flags]
Just hurry up and do some of this too!
Republicans have a House majority, and it is way past time for y’all to restart HUAC!
What was done once, may be done again, so do it already!
Instead of complaining about the Right being oppressed, start oppressing the Left, and I can think of no faction more worthy of being called out than pro-Hamas scum!
Just do it already!
[context: Do you want government mandated religion?]
1) What do you say/do/feel for minority religious people? I'm sure there are a significant number of devout people who find objection to any but the most mundane religious prayer/symbol/etc. Maybe consider a Catholic parent who's offended that that Ten Commandments imposed on schools is wrongly stated from the Catholic point of view.
A vote should be held on this. That's why we have school board elections, mayoral elections, etc. If you object to a Protestant being elected mayor, you're welcome to elect a Catholic. That's what "no religious test for office" should mean.
2) What do you do when Christian's differ in their faith? At least in my home town, the majority of Churches are super open to, and encourage the membership of gay people. But some churches disagree. Yet we probably need a state or national view on "Are these two particular people married".
A vote should be held on this as well, of course. That's why we have a democracy. We held votes on it, the American people agreed that marriage was only a man and a woman, it should have ended there with no issue.
P.S. There is one majority Muslim town in the US with 25,000 people who live in Hamtramck MI.
They should have been deported.
[Universal franchise] made things worse. Abolishing the vote for most of both blacks and whites would be preferred, but I'm not a believer in absolute equality to begin with, so I don't care if we get there by bits and pieces. You're getting into the danger zone as soon as the voters don't comprise a small aristocracy of people who all know each other and have a vested interest in upholding a foundational constitution. Every little step away from ideal is bad, so yes, letting blacks vote more easily was worse for long term societal outcomes.
I disagree with Maimonides that [Leviticus] allows battlefield rape (as opposed to forced marriage of captive women, which it clearly allows), but if I were convinced that it did, I would say battlefield rape was good, yes.
I agree with Maimonides that my intuitions may disagree with God's Law, but that puts my intuitions in the wrong, not God's Law.
[In response to a climate protester pouring red powder on the US Constitution display case at the National Archives.]
Just keep them as permanent slaves. We don't want this style of protest to spread, and nipping it in the bud is the easiest way to stop it. Destroying value for the sake of destroying value, and with a bad cause to start with? Yeah, they're free labor now.
As someone who thinks Africans are better off under white rule and that whites don't really gain anything from ruling over them, but that we should sometimes do so anyway as a humanitarian act - I don't see how I'm not White Supremacist adjacent. And yet, my only real motive here is believing that black life has some value while the term White supremacist tends to have the connotation of, 'you have the right to exploit and oppress other races without concern for their wellbeing.'
From my perspective, white nationalism implies low IQ non-whites having little to no moral value at all, since the conditions of life they'd live under without foreign rule are pretty awful and so I'd be hesitant to call myself that. I find it irritating that a Bill Clinton voter for example can feel no shame for supporting a man who set the exchange rate for White American to Rwandan lives at less than 1 to 50K, and believes they are more moral than me.
Compare this to the 2000 British Sailors who died rescuing 100K Africans from slavery in the 1800s and didn't believe Africans should rule themselves, or that they had the same intrinsic value as their own white countrymen. They were almost certainly white supremacists. And yet, even purely by the standard of valuing African welfare I think they'd clearly and rightfully be designated as morally superior.
The NPCs don't think, the intellectuals[1] and the elites[2] are[3] pro[4] pedophilia[5].
[1]: A failed French petition to lower the age of consent to 13, and to make the age of consent the same for “natural” and “unnatural” sex acts.
[2]: A photograph of Prince Andrew, Virginia Giuffre and Ghislaine Maxwell, provided by vV_Vv without context (I used TinEye to figure out what I was actually looking at).
[3]: Wikipedia’s “Reactions to the arrest” section of their article on Roman Polanski’s sexual abuse case.
[4]: Wikipedia article for Call Me by Your Name (2017), a Rom-Drama between a 17yo girl and a 24yo man.
[5]: Wikipedia article for Cuties (2020), a film about a young livestreamer that, according to the scriptwriter, “is intended to criticise the hypersexualisation of pre-adolescent girls.”
I’ll bite the bullet and admit that I think most women basically don’t have agency in the same way that men do, that they prefer to live their lives without the agency that men have, and that this is basically a Good Thing. The problem is reordering the world to insist that women have just as much agency as men when you’re unlikely to get them to actually act like they do. The majority of happily married men that I know basically take what amounts to a traditional head of household approach to how things are run - the man made the move in the relationship, made the decision to step to marriage, made the decision on buying a house, and makes many small decisions such as where to go to dinner. Of course, they want input from their wives and treat the decision-making process as being substantially predicated on making their wives happy, but they also certainly behave as though they know that their wives don’t want to make these decisions. Of note, these are not stay at home tradwives - I’m thinking of scientists, attorneys, IT professionals, and other high-agency careers women that would really prefer their husbands make calls.
Of course, pretty much none of them will phrase it that way, but it is what it is.
In the very long term, the whole First Nations thing just suggests that Machiavelli's advice to "Never do an enemy a small injury" should be taken to its logical extreme.