MovieChat Forums > Politics > Liberal science logic

Liberal science logic


Liberals: We are using science to prove global warming is a legitimate threat.
Also liberals: We are using science to prove there are 500 genders.

reply

Conservatives: the earth is 10,000 years old and Jesus is going to kill our enemies. What's science?

reply

Lol. You guys have gone beyond fake news, you just flat out lie and make up stuff.

reply

You mean lying?!
Wait a second......

reply

So you know exactly how old the earth is? There is no consensus and a LOT of the theories have been totally debunked. That said, I don't claim to have any idea how old the earth is and as much as this will piss you off, no one else does either.

reply

Triggered. Lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

And for the bonus round:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

reply

Who is triggered? Took me 5 seconds to google it.

reply

Wikipedia? Really? That's just one of many speculations.

reply

LMFAO!

reply

WWSmith, the earth is billions of years old, and there is not proof that "Jesus" ever lived.

reply

Liberal logic? That's a contradiction of terms.

reply

Liberals reject science on gender, abortion (a "fetus" is a human life), hunting, insecticide (their push to ban DTT in an ignorant emotional outburst killed millions in the third world via malaria), forest management, and countless other topics. They're often Luddites when it comes to useful technology like fracking that boosts capitalism and undermines the push for socialism. Since Apollo they've been more opposed to the space program than Republicans have been (it doesn't buy enough votes per buck). They reject empirical reality on economics and other topics, most saliently the decisive historical verdict of the Cold War. Some liberal celebrities have been big on the anti-vaccination idiocy (e.g. Jim Carey, Jenny McCarthy). Leftists are inherently prone to conspiracy theories given their ideological assumptions that blame some "enemy" class or group for every problem.

Liberals don't even care about understanding the world as it is or cultivating critical thinking ability, which is why they've seized control of and dumbed down the education system in recent decades. They seek excuses to silence opponents rather than intellectually engage in an open-minded way. They support indoctrination and chant mindless bumper-sticker sized soundbites rather than construct cogent arguments. They ceaselessly lie to each other in an echo chamber and their bottomfeeders walk around in bubbles of delusion.

Biden: "We choose truth over facts!"

reply

Biden: "We choose truth over facts!"


Kellyanne Conway: "We used alternate facts"

Ghouliani: "The truth isn't always the truth"

reply

Conway was talking about important facts that leftist propagandists were omitting. What the hell was Biden talking about?

reply

Conway was talking about important facts that leftist propagandists were omitting.


LOL! Yes, leftitst propagandists were omitting the use of a 'doctored' photo at T-rump's inaugural. That was her 'alternate facts' that weekend.

Do you even read what you typed out before you hit 'add reply' ?

reply

Wrong, but either way the point was that was what she meant. Media and others omit important facts all the time. You didn't answer the question. What did Biden mean, lol?

reply

No, she was referring to the lies T-rump was telling about his inauguration and the doctored photograph- "the biggest evah in history" even though the real photos proved otherwise, as well as the facts.

Conway said he used 'alternate facts'.

And of course, Ghouliani told everyone last summer that 'The truth isn't always the truth'.

WTF is that even supposed to mean?

I'm not concerned with what Biden said - I most concerned with the liar in the White House.

reply

The truth isn't always the truth, just ask Bill and Hillary.

reply

Ummmm, Ghouliani wasn't speaking on their behalf. He was speaking on T-rump's behalf.

But kudos to you for deflecting with Bill and Hillary! Up next: your desperate deflection to the Obamas...

reply

I'm not concerned with what Biden said

LOL! That must be why you tried to bury it under a mountain of BS deflection. Anyone, even Democrats, can use the term "alternative facts" to refer to facts they think are important that are being ignored (it's an easy concept to understand), and in broader context Giuliani was just referring to conflicting witness testimony.

This is something else:

Biden: ""We choose truth over facts!"

reply

LOL! That must be why you tried to bury it under a mountain of BS deflection. Anyone, even Democrats, can use the term "alternative facts" to refer to facts they think are important that are being ignored (it's an easy concept to understand), and in broader context Giuliani was just referring to conflicting witness testimony.


LOL! Do you even believe in the bullshit you post?

Just curious....

reply

Are you asking about "truth" or "facts"?

reply

Doesn't matter - both are unknown concepts to you.

reply

No I'm a fan of both. Your boy Biden's the one who opposes "facts".

reply

Maybe he likes 'alternate facts' like Kellyanne Conway and the republicans?

reply

No, Biden just said he opposes facts in general.

reply

Just remember, Joe Biden can't even tell states apart, much less what day of the week it is, hehe.

reply

How about Republican morality?

Republican: We believe in the sanctity of life, so are against abortion.
Also Republicans: Except if the woman has a baby out of wedlock. Then she and her baby should starve to death without any social programs.

Moral of the story: Both liberals and Republicans are assholes. It's why everyone should be a Moderate/Independent, like me!

reply

Wrong. Republicans are opposed to babies starving, lol. They support a basic safety net and conservatives personally give more money, time, and blood to charity than liberals do. It's not even close. Regardless, even if your claim was true, not forcing other people to be responsible for your children isn't the moral equivalent of stabbing a baby in the back of the head with scissors, dismembering him, or sucking him through a machine in a horrific process that leaves his corpse semi-liquified.

PS - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/middle-ground

reply

Republicans do not support a basic safety net.
They hate the idea and try to gut Social Security and Medicare at every opportunity:
Moscow Mitch is always calling these programs entitlement programs to get people upset about them. States with Republican leadership turned down Medicare funding for Obamacare out of spite.
And of course, under tRump they actually voted to kick everyone off Obamacare with no replacement plan (and they've had decades to come up with one).
The results of the 2018 midterm elections were a direct response to these actions.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/its-not-just-medicare-trump-budget-eyes-social-security-cuts-too

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/373490-the-latest-devious-republican-attack-on-social-security

Trump promised he wouldn't cut these programs but as usual, he lied and went on to propose cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Also the myth that conservatives give more to charity has been debunked by an MIT study:

http://www.gospelpolitics.com/debunking-the-conservatives-give-more-to-charity-myth.html

reply

Wrong. Republicans have been trying to save and modernize anachronistic mid-20th Century programs like SS and Medicare that were going bankrupt in their status quo forms even before Democrats raided Medicare to help pay for the cluster***k that was Obamacare. Obamacare kicked millions of people off of healthcare plans they liked, not Republicans, and every superior Republican alternative has been blocked by Democrats.

The "2018 midterm elections" were a split result, with Republicans winning net seats in the Senate so you're deluding yourself. Midterms typically go against the party controlling the White House and are a different dynamic than presidential elections when both sides are fully engaged. Examples of real mid term ass kickings, true wave elections, are when the GOP won net 54 House seats and 8 Senate seats in 1994 to take control of both chambers after Clinton had tried to ram through a socialist government takeover of healthcare (also 10 governorships), and 2010 when Republicans picked up net 63 House seats (the most since the 1940s) and House control in a direct repudiation of Democrats ramming Obamacare through. While they didn't pick up the Senate, they did gain net 7 Senate seats, including the deceased Ted Kennedy's seat in a special MA election, telling since Kennedy was the Senator most associated with imposing government healthcare.




reply

The attempts to "modernize" Social Security and Medicare. Lol. Yeah. Privatize it and get rid of regulation. Then you'll see some price gouging.
No one is buying this line.
You must think no one was paying attention when Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare with NO REPLACEMENT. And they voted to repeal it 50 times previous to the monumental fail under tRump.
Republicans have no honest workable plan for health care other than: Let insurance companies charge customers through the roof.

Paul Ryan literally admitted that he had been dreaming of cutting Medicaid since he was in college.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/paul-ryan-medicaid

So if you are in some "young Republicans" college group and you've bought this privatization line, well, good luck with that. No one who understands what this means for health care recipients will go along with it.

reply

You're talking about show votes that had no chance of being signed by Obama? Democrats do the same thing, though the Trump effort was a replacement that at least would have decentralized things and let states with different preferences innovate and try out different stuff. The truth is the pre-Obamacare status quo was preferable to Obamacare. It wasn't "nothing". Polls showed the vast majority of Americans were insured and happy with their healthcare. Obamacare not only raided Medicare funding (rendering your hypocritical whining on that score truly funny) but kicked millions off their plans, limited doctor options for many, and squeezed the middle class in particular with jacked up premiums and deductibles. What gain did we get from this Orwellian nightmare that's hammering the middle class? Most of the poor people now counted as "insured" were already eligible for coverage under Medicaid, which, since it doesn't count pre-existing conditions against you, they just hadn't bothered to sign up for yet because they could wait until they needed it.

Democrats, who admittedly sold the policy by lying to the American people...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/11/10/obamacare-architect-yeah-we-lied-to-the-stupid-american-people-n1916605

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/07/16/biden-just-used-obamas-infamous-lie-of-the-year-in-his-healthcare-campaign-push-775330

....and still failed to convince them, kicked over a massive chunk of US society just to help a tiny sliver of the population who could have been helped in other ways without doing that massive damage. "Medicare for all" wouldn't be Medicare. It would destroy Medicare with massive rationing.

Trump's opposed to touching Social Security or Medicare, but most people with sense favor reforms like the Bush-proposed private accounts that would let people voluntarily divert some of their SS taxes into investment accounts they (not the government) would own, with gains dwarfing SS returns.

reply

[deleted]

Also the myth that conservatives give more to charity has been debunked by an MIT study:

http://www.gospelpolitics.com/debunking-the-conservatives-give-more-to-charity-myth.html

Wrong again. Rather than spend time explaining how you and that blog you linked to misunderstood that 2012 study, I'll just cite a more recent one from 2016 by the same "MIT" authors.

"Using three national surveys, including an original two-wave panel study, we find sizable differences in overall giving between partisans, with Republicans giving more to charity on average....Building on recent work on partisans’ differing use of ‘‘conspicuous consumption,’’ as well as prior work on the relationship between giving and ideology, we hypothesize that conservatives and Republicans will give more to charity than liberals and Democrats. We find strong support for this hypothesis: depending on the sample and measure of political identities used, we estimate that conservatives and Republicans give up to 160 dollars more to all charities per year, relative to liberals and Democrats....

Our result is also consistent with Brooks (2006), who finds conservatism and charitable giving in particular are linked.
"

https://www.michelemargolis.com/uploads/2/0/2/0/20207607/margolis_sances_pb.pdf

In fact multiple studies by different people with different methodologies have confirmed over the years that conservatives are more charitable. And while the "MIT" study focuses on financial giving, as Brooks has pointed out conservatives also volunteer more of their time and donate more of their blood.

reply

Moderates: Everyone is an asshole but me.
Sorry, but in the Moviechat politics forum, everybody is an asshole.
You're in the club just by posting here.

reply

Moderates: Everyone is an asshole but me.


That may be so, but then again the whole point of this thread is how contradictory political parties are, and simply being snarky and saying that Moderates think that they're not assholes doesn't explain how they're contradictory in the same way that Republicans and Liberals are.

They're not. Moderates understand that there's no such thing as issues neatly falling according to "right" or "left" ideology, because life is far too complex for that.

For example, in the case of abortion, an Independent or Moderate would argue that it's a woman's right to have an abortion, especially if she would be in dire straits if she had the baby. However, they would also emphasize adoption as an alternative to just aborting if it's possible, be fully supportive of social programs if she chose to keep the baby and stress the importance of birth control as a preventative measure.

The American Left and American Right couldn't care less about this type of balanced view. For the American Left, a woman must abort without question--even so much as suggesting adoption as an alternative is considered is anti-choice (even though, ironically, the American Left are dictating that women choose abortion as their only option and not consider any alternatives). For the American Right, a woman must keep her baby without thinking because they believe in the "sanctity of life" and then be forced to fend herself without the benefit of social programs to make sure that the child grows up healthy and in a stable environment.

So, you can mock me as a "Moderate" all you want. I know that moderates often have the more balanced view in this country; the fact is why the American Left and the American Right have been "eating their own" over the past few years. They can't stomach the moderates within their own parties.

reply

They're not. Moderates understand that there's no such thing as issues neatly falling according to "right" or "left" ideology, because life is far too complex for that.

Or they're shallow and/or don't follow politics closely and tend to sway with various winds.
For example, in the case of abortion, an Independent or Moderate would argue that it's a woman's right to have an abortion, especially if she would be in dire straits if she had the baby.

First, an "Independent" isn't necessarily the same thing as a "moderate". Independent refers to party affiliation, or lack thereof. A lot of Independents are hard core ideologues. Many are to the right of Republicans and don't identify as "Republican" because they're disgusted with the party and think they're too liberal. Polling over the years has found more (often around twice as many) voters view Republicans as too liberal than Democrats as too conservative, which is why Independents usually break Republican in general elections. That's why elections are competitive despite Democrats having that higher affiliation rate they're always bragging about.

"Moderates", on the other hand, are people ideologically roughly in the middle of the crude one dimensional spectrum. Contrary to your claim moderates can be all over the place on specific issues. Many are Pro Life on abortion (especially since polling consistently shows that a supermajority of Americans, including some self described pro choicers, want abortion significantly more legally restricted than it is now). Some are consistent while others contradict themselves in a variety of ways. You can't put all "moderates" into one tight little box. If anything a widespread feature most tend to share is the lack of a well thought out political philosophy. They've usually inherited beliefs, values, and principles, but haven't consciously worked out all the details so they can apply them to electoral politics in an informed way.

reply

Not to mention they project their shortcomings onto Christians and say we're "anti-science," when it was Christianity that inspired many western scientists to explore and make discoveries in the past. They also fail to mention that the first meal on the moon in 1969 was communion, and the astronauts said prayers on the lunar lander.

reply

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." - Sir Francis Bacon, creator of the scientific method.

reply

You get it! Yay! :D

reply

Conservatives: We're not feelings-based. We only believe in facts and logic, things that can be backed up with proof.
Also conservatives: God is real, despite the fact that there is zero scientific evidence that supports this claim, but we FEEL that he's real, so he must be.

Seriously though, as someone who doth not dabble in politics too often, only like 5% of liberals actually believe in the "more than two genders" crap, whereas the overwhelming majority of conservatives believe in some sort of Christianity. Go out and ask a leftist if they think there are more than two genders, and most will laugh, despite what Fox and Ben Shapiro might tell you. What's that? The right winged media lies and manipulates too? Wow. Hypocrisy is played by both teams.

reply

Would you be so brave to mock Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and every other religion, or is Christianity the easy target because we don't lop off people's heads or get you fired from your job?

reply

There's so much wrong with this. I've never heard of Hindus or Jews executing people for being non-theists, and only the 1% extremists of radical Muslims actually execute non-Muslims. Christianity is the easy target because you don't see many conservative Jews, Hindus, or Muslims, now do ya? All religions are the same.

reply

If you're going to criticize Muslim radicals then you should criticize the heart of the problem which is Saudi Arabia. Thats where Bin Laden and al qaeda's brand of terrorism stemmed from. Yet this president is selling them weapons unlike never before.

reply

Do you know there is zero scientific evidence that God is not real?

reply

There's about as much evidence to support God as there is to support the theory of 500 genders.

reply

You must not dabble in philosophy, science, or thinking much either because almost every sentence you typed is false. For example, I've never heard a conservative say he "only" believes "in facts and logic". I'm not even sure what that would mean since some knowledge necessarily come from intuition (or is suprarational, not the same as irrational), whether the intuitive source is instinct, divine revelation, or a mix of other things. We know this because the most fundamental rules for math and logic themselves can't be rationally proven once you get down to a certain point. We just accept them (aka "axioms"). That's aside from the fact that the evidence for God runs the gambit from subjective experience (which does count) to the historical record to scientific (e.g. finely tuned universe).

However, conservatives do emphasize their general reliance on facts and logic when dealing with earthly political issues versus liberals, and rightly so. Even their Christian worldview provides a rational basis for our rights and morality that atheists lack but often still shallowly espouse to some degree without basis because they've inherited Christian and US historical influence.

You understate how many liberals buy the gender garbage, but the problem is that those who do occupy the top societal rungs in the education system and much of the media, with even some official forms and city councils getting in on it. That's who conservatives focus their criticism on, not rank and file liberals. it wasn't much more than 5% who supported gay marriage two decades ago, with most Democrat voters laughing it off. Look how that's turned out. The radical left isn't going to stop until it gets stopped.



reply

"For example, I've never heard a conservative say he "only" believes "in facts and logic". I'm not even sure what that would mean since some knowledge necessarily come from intuition (or is suprarational, not the same as irrational), whether the intuitive source is instinct, divine revelation, or a mix of other things."

I would agree with this mindset, but I can't agree due to sheer experience. I presently reside in the American south, the Bible Belt, the Conservative Hotbed, whatever you wanna call it. I've met too many people who state the "facts and logic" argument. I'm glad you understand what should be common sense, but most of the conservatives I grew up with and still currently know simply do not think the same way you do.

"That's aside from the fact that the evidence for God runs the gambit from subjective experience (which does count)"

Subjective experience = feelings. Feelings =/= facts.

"However, conservatives do emphasize their general reliance on facts and logic when dealing with earthly political issues versus liberals, and rightly so. Even their Christian worldview provides a rational basis for our rights and morality that atheists lack but often still shallowly espouse to some degree without basis because they've inherited Christian and US historical influence. "

aaaaand this is where you've lost me entirely. Conservatives have constantly disregarded earthly scientific evidence and facts because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. The issue is that BOTH liberals and conservatives input and overwhelming amount of feelings and intuition into their politics, but it seems only liberals are self-aware. And what morality do atheists lack? Because atheists don't believe that Moses walked to the top of Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments directly from God, that means atheists have issues with morality? We really need a book to tell us we should rape or kill people?

Ran out of space. I didn't even know that could happen on this site.

reply

"You understate how many liberals buy the gender garbage, but the problem is that those who do occupy the top societal rungs in the education system and much of the media, with even some official forms and city councils getting in on it. That's who conservatives focus their criticism on, not rank and file liberals. it wasn't much more than 5% who supported gay marriage two decades ago, with most Democrat voters laughing it off. Look how that's turned out. The radical left isn't going to stop until it gets stopped."

I really doubt people are getting in on it at the rate you're claiming. But yes, conservatives do indeed focus their criticisms on the 'rank and file liberals'. The college millennials who aren't even old enough to pay their health insurance are the ones we almost always see being either ridiculed by conservatives or feared by conservatives, as they think one loon shares the same opinions as half of the nation. Far more than 5% supported gay marriage in the '90s (certainly not as many as now), but, shocker, it was mostly the conservatives who rejected the concept of gay marriage due to its religious connotation! The difference is that gay rights and alternative gender titles are two completely different things. Homosexuals fighting for equal rights is something that's actually important. A male demanding to be called a 'zerf' or 'freelance human spirit' or whatever is not important, and nobody really cares. As of 2019, NO major cities or councils are actually moving forward with a 500 gender titles thing. In 2017, the overwhelmingly liberal city of Toronto vetoed a bill that would make it illegal to call a cis-gender person their real binary gender 0-55. That's the only thing I can find where anything like this gained traction, and it flopped to its own audience. And regardless, who cares what someone wants to be called? Sure it's stupid, but is it REALLY that big of a deal if Robert want to be called a female? If the worst thing liberals end up doing is announcing the 'discovery' of 500 genders, I'd say liberals haven't done a whole lot wrong.

reply

Well I'm from Texas and have interacted with conservative Christian southerners my whole life so I guess my personal anecdote cancels out yours. Either way believing in God isn't a violation of "facts and logic". The irony is that your account helps me make my next point...

Subjective experience = feelings. Feelings =/= facts.

Not necessarily. If you see a white crow you know they exist even if you can't objectively prove it to anyone else (that also applies to other personal anecdotes). It's a subjective experience that has nothing to do with "feelings". That said, the interactions with God that countless people have had can and often do certainly involve feelings, along with other things like observations, intuitive knowledge, or a sense of connection with the divine. If some have categorically emphasized that they "only" rely on facts on logic as you say, and it wasn't clear from context that they were talking about something relatively narrow like politics (which is what I've observed), then I'd suggest that their mistake was simply being sloppy and overly categorical with their language, not contradicting any core values. The bigger hypocrisy is leftists constantly preening about being "pro-science" and falsely labeling their opponents "anti-science", while it's liberals routinely lighting science on fire and throwing it overboard even on political issues.

reply

it seems only liberals are self-aware. And what morality do atheists lack? Because atheists don't believe that Moses...receive the Ten Commandments directly from God, that means atheists have issues with morality? We really need a book to tell us we should rape or kill people?

That liberals are the ones lacking self awareness is my point, and you help me make it in the same comment. Morals are just a set of rules anyone can draw up. The problem is atheists lack any basis (yes, like a "book", more precisely God’s word) for a universal, objective morality. They're oblivious to the fact that their own morality is largely inherited from Christianity and would fade with time without the Christian foundation. Even atheist Nietzsche rightly mocked secular humanists for their conceited myopia, saying that you can’t “kill God” and expect there not to be consequences, though inertia may mask them for a few generations. An atheist trying to talk about “human rights” (by which he means natural rights) is just babbling nonsense he hasn’t thought through. Locke rooted his natural rights philosophy (on which the American founding was largely based) on the theistic premise for a reason.

Example: Try arguing for human equality (a scientific absurdity) without appealing to God. This is especially pertinent as we’re on the cusp of entering the age of genetic manipulation, human/animal hybrids, etc..

reply

The college millennials who aren't even old enough to pay their health insurance are the ones we almost always see being either ridiculed by conservatives

If they're being debated by conservatives and actually hold those views, lol. Often the students in question are just screaming mindless chants at the conservative or assaulting people.
it was mostly the conservatives who rejected the concept of gay marriage due to its religious connotation!

And concern for society, the species, etc.. I know atheists who oppose it too. So did most Democrats, including Obama, less than a decade ago, with polls showing they flipped rapidly in the span of a few years. Most blacks (one of the most liberal groups) may still oppose it. Revulsion to certain forms of sexual deviancy is perfectly normal and healthy for reasons that should be obvious. That doesn’t mean you hate the person in question (any more than disapproving of someone smoking does; though some liberals probably do hate smokers) and it certainly doesn’t make you a bigot. Meanwhile the pro gay marriage push was entirely about emotion.

reply

The difference is that gay rights and alternative gender titles are two completely different things.

While skin color and sexual behavior are two different things, despite liberals constantly equating the two, the gender mess has grown directly out of the “gay rights” push and is a predictable next step.
Homosexuals fighting for equal rights is something that's actually important.

LOL! Would you really have said that three decades ago, or are you oblivious to your own trend-driven malleability? Most rank and file Democrats opposed “gay marriage” less than a decade ago, as did Obama. It was just a media bandwagon push, a propaganda blitz from the top down. If settlement patterns had been different, and polygamists had settled in Hollywood and NYC while gays had concentrated in a mecca in Utah, then we’d have legally sanctioned polygamy now instead of gay marriage. Either way it has nothing to do with “equality” since marriage, like any defined concept, is still inherently exclusionary (e.g. incest, age, species, the aforementioned polyamorous relationships).

reply

Treating people equally is not the same as treating actions equally, as proved by every set of morals, laws, or ethics ever drawn up. If the government has certain behaviors it has an interest in encouraging through the incentive infrastructure, like attending college or having men and women marry to form nuclear families (the bedrock of human society throughout history), there’s no compelling moral reason why it must pay the equivalent of a student loan to someone who chooses not to attend college, or redefine “marriage” to accommodate a fringe special interest that isn’t interested in getting married (real marriage is a union between the sexes). It’s important that consenting adults have the freedom to pursue whatever relationships they want, but the government doesn’t have to encourage it or pretend it’s equally desirable as heterosexual marriage.

The bottom line is that one can’t dismiss wacko liberal craziness as merely fringe, because today’s fringe craziness could be the imposed status quo tomorrow.

That's the only thing I can find where anything like this gained traction, and it flopped to its own audience.

Seriously?

“Individuals living in New York City can choose from a minimum of 31 different gender identities, many of which allow them to fluctuate between some version or combination of male or female identities.

Businesses that don’t respect and accommodate an individual’s chosen gender identity risk incurring six-figure fines under rules implemented by the city’s Commission on Human Rights.”


https://dailycaller.com/2016/05/24/new-york-city-lets-you-choose-from-31-different-gender-identities/

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/GenderID_Card2015.pdf

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/01/health/washington-pennsylvania-gender-x-id/index.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2019/02/15/airlines-gender-option-non-binary-flyers/2881329002/

reply

A male demanding to be called a 'zerf' or 'freelance human spirit' or whatever is not important, and nobody really cares.

The poor guy in red here has certainly been brainwashed into caring, and an entire national political convention was brainwashed into indulging him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPLQNUVmq3o&t=77s

On social media celebrities and even Democratic politicians have felt compelled to virtue signal by providing pro forma pronoun designations (e.g. "he/him"), and with strident seriousness.
is it REALLY that big of a deal if Robert want to be called a female? If the worst thing liberals end up doing is announcing the 'discovery' of 500 genders, I'd say liberals haven't done a whole lot wrong.

Wow, don’t step on that landmine. We don’t want to get into tangents about 100 million killed by Marxist democide, billions oppressed and impoverished around the world by leftist policies, 60+ million babies killed in the US alone since Roe v Wade, wrecking the education system and almost every major US urban center, the catastrophic poverty/dependence trap liberal policies have pulled much of the US black demographic into since the 1960s, ruining entertainment, or a host of other things, but destroying the institution of marriage and possibly the human race itself by attacking sex would rank up there.

reply

Exactly. Conservatives target blue-haired college kids because they are the only liberals that conservatives are able to win a debate against. Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Dave Rubin... the only people they debate are college kids.

The only conservatives stupid enough to debate the leftists that have a following are people like Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens. They do it and take a loss in those debates because all they care about is gaining more recognition.

reply

The only time I see gender mentioned, its from triggered conservatives.

reply

I've noticed that too. Some crackpot on an internet forum says "500 Genders!" like it's a real talking point. I follow a lot of progressive / liberals on social media and no one is pushing this idea.

reply

Trumpers do it because they need something to be angry about that deflects away from the failure their savior turned out to be.

reply

He is the chosen one! (Even though he lost the election)

reply

Hahahaha! You guys a re such hypocrites. If Hillary won the election in the exact same manner, y'all'd be shouting from the rooftops: "Hillary won, fair and square".

reply

If Hillary were a white supremacists like tRump I'd raise hell.
Maybe you should consider why people on the left seem more interested in values of equality and fairness. You probably can't comprehend that.
Your standard for ethics is the orange wannabe dictator.
It is interesting too that the Electoral College has been used twice to rob Democrats from elections that would have gone their way if the popular vote had decided.
There's something really rotten about a so called democracy where one person doesn't equal one vote.

reply

From what I've seen, Hillary IS a white supremacist. Trump is not. That's one lie that no matter how many times you guys repeat it, it will never become the truth.

More hypocrisy. You guys are pushing for states like Colorado to surrender their electoral votes to the popular vote winner, thus depriving potentially a WHOLE STATE of their votes.

reply

[deleted]

Failure? Not by a long shot.

reply

🤣 You either live on another planet, or you just lie for the convenience of it, but there is NO way you really can believe that if you are a human being living today. That's some funny shit right there.

reply

As a simple observation, look how often leftists make a post about gender on this board. And then compare to how often a conservative makes a post about gender on this board. Over the past week its been the subject in about 3 right-winger/Trumper OPs. Yet it hasn't been the subject of a single leftist OP on here.

The problem is you listen to people who constantly criticize leftists. It becomes an echo chamber. The more they repeat it, the more you believe you heard it from the source when the truth is... you either took the word from the echo chamber as fact, or you clicked on a link the echo chamber provided to you.

reply

How about a conservative showing a clip of some girl named Taylor Swift on some obscure program called the "MTV VMAs" lobbying for the "Equality Act" that would make it illegal to disregard someone's "gender identity"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-2Zd0IqNUM&list=WL&index=722

Or New York already imposing a similar regulation?

https://dailycaller.com/2016/05/24/new-york-city-lets-you-choose-from-31-different-gender-identities/

Or Facebook having dozens of gender options? (oh look, for fun a liberal source touting it)

https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/02/13/276530020/facebook-gives-users-new-options-to-identify-gender

Or has your actual echo chamber become so tightly Orwellian and detached from reality that you can flip back and forth from having always been at war with either Eastasia or Eurasia at any given moment, multiple times a day, and always believe the current narrative is true?

reply

Steven Crowder is a right-wing echo chamber. He's primarily for idiots, as he only debates college kids and runs as fast as he can from any leftist debater that has a following. Sometimes he loses debates with college kids too, like he did against that Yusef kid.

Facebook is a global social media platform that wants as many people using the platform as is possible.

Every state allows you to choose your own gender identity. There's never been a law against it. The New York ruling merely outlines 31 identities that people have been known to throw around for years. The ruling says a company must accept your gender identity or they could end up paying a fine. Most companies do this already. For example, if you're a woman who looks like a man, and a company mistakes you as a man, they probably aren't going to keep calling you a man if you correct them. This ruling just makes the company pay a fine if they harass you based on their own opinion of what you are. There is no fine for an honest mistake.

Unfortunately, too often conservatives get up in arms because they can no longer harass people based on their own opinions.

What has you perplexed is liberals are in agreement with each other when they say "no matter what gender you consider yourself, we accept you in the party."

Conservatives, however, are divided. Some agree trans people are a thing. Some don't. You seem to want to think that any conservative who believes there are more than two genders is somehow automatically kicked off the team. It doesn't work that way kiddo.

reply

So essentially you finally get around to conceding that you were wrong when you claimed above that conservatives are the only ones mentioning gender and this is a hyped up issue. Not only are leftist outfits like Facebook virtue signaling by hopping on the bandwagon, but liberal politicians are outlawing scientifically correct terminology and trampling freedom of speech and thought to pander to a fringe special interest of mental disorders.

Steven Crowder is the opposite of an "echo chamber". A big part of his career is literally debating any leftist who's willing, engaging intellectually in a civil way. He goes to universities (among other places) because they've become leftist bastions. He's also likely smarter than anyone you know in person. And he demolished Yusef. The kid didn't even know the tax or education structure of the Nordic nations he predictably cited as examples of "socialism" working. He also didn't have a firm grasp of what socialism is. Crowder educated him, mostly politely though he got aggressive and made Yusef look stupid when the latter tried to insult him (and libertarians generally) as "autistic" (for being too logical) and "shills". Yusef also didn't seem to know that the US already has a minimum wage at both the federal and state levels. He argued that implementing a minimum wage would dissuade employers from hiring immigrants instead of Americans, which obviously hasn't happened empirically since illegals are often paid less than minimum wage and among Americans it's largely teenagers making minimum wage.

reply

"So essentially you finally get around to conceding that you were wrong when you claimed above that conservatives are the only ones mentioning gender and this is a hyped up issue."

What I'm saying is, its not the liberal agenda pushing multiple genders. I will agree that the people who are of those genders are pushing the agenda of multiple genders. But the liberal "agenda" is to accept them to gain their votes.

The conservative wing of the party can't agree whether its real or not. Some say yes, some say no. Since some conservatives want LGBTQ+ to cease to exist, they end up talking about it a lot.

The liberal wing of the party doesn't have that problem. Liberals agree in unison that LGBTQ+ is real. Its a done issue. So liberals end up not talking about it as much.

reply

Meant to add in the previous post that the reason I linked to the Crowder video was to show the clip they featured of celebrity liberals stridently campaigning on the issue on a nationally televised music awards show. It's not conservatives participating in the ridiculous trend of stating your preferred pronouns pro forma when introducing yourself. Those are liberals, including Democrat politicians.

Leftists are rapidly trying to institutionalize this unscientific nonsense throughout society, not only in annoying but voluntary social media statements of expression, but in legally coercing others into surrendering their right to use proper pronouns. That's where freedom loving people have to draw the line.

In Canada laws have already been passed letting the government prosecute you for "hate crimes" if you call someone by the "wrong" (aka scientifically accurate) gender pronoun. Even before then things had grown so absurd there that journalist/activist Lauren Southern, a hot blonde chick, was quickly and easily able to get the government to legally recognize her as a "man" simply by going to a clerk and claiming she identified as one. That might be comical if it didn't have potentially life changing legal consequences for anyone interacting with such a person (well it's still hilarious but also serious).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGpZSefYvwM

reply

"Leftists are rapidly trying to institutionalize this unscientific nonsense throughout society."

There's nothing for liberals to institute. Reality is already reality. There are people who identify as a different gender. Again, if its a conservative who identifies that way, that does not remove them from the conservative wing and automatically make them a liberal.

At one point, the majority of conservatives disagreed with gay marriage. Now a majority agree with gay marriage. Are you REALLY gonna sit there and pretend the majority of conservatives have been permanently brainwashed? Is that REALLY how conspiratorial your mind is? Or can you simply be a man and admit that the majority of conservatives simply realized they were wrong to oppose gay marriage?

reply

At one point, the majority of conservatives disagreed with gay marriage. Now a majority agree with gay marriage.

"A majority of conservative Republicans (58 percent), Republicans overall (51 percent)...oppose same-sex marriage,"

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/support-for-same-sex-marriage-isnt-unanimous/

That was from last year. New polling shows the total percentage of Americans who support traditional marriage ticking back up some.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx

I guess when you've jettisoned science, facts, and objective truth to chase power you don't think twice about spewing falsehoods. They won't be held against you in your delusional liberal bubble.

Traditional marriage supporters won the actual elections, even in liberal states from California to Maine. The destruction of any deep, coherent meaning in marriage had to be forcibly imposed by activist judges, taking it out of the political realm. And yes, people are heavily shaped (or "brainwashed", loosely speaking) by top down orders and propaganda pushes all the time. Most Chinese people support their totalitarian regime. Same in North Korea. It's open. No "conspiracy" is required. Democrats switched from a majority supporting traditional marriage to a majority supporting gay marriage almost overnight because they got their marching orders. Peer pressure (social media mobs), one sided bandwagon techniques, and mafia-like pressure campaigns (traditional marriage supporters being harassed, fired, etc.) cultivated from the top down helped things. Many have certainly adapted to saying they support gay marriage whether they secretly do or not.
Reality is already reality. There are people who identify as a different gender.

There are people who identify as Napoleon. Doesn't mean you should provide them with the hats and costumes, and put a gun to other people's heads and force them call the sick people "Emperor".

reply

But the liberal "agenda" is to accept them to gain their votes.

Enable and exploit them in the pursuit of political power is more like it. It isn't good for the delusional people involved or for society.


reply

Okay, so...

Liberals: support LGBTQ+ to get their votes

Conservatives: try to convince people its a mental illness to maintain the votes of the bigots but ultimately fail to get all conservatives on board and end up admitting its not a mental illness and start supporting LGBTQ+ to get their votes.

Thats how it went for homosexuality and marriage. And round and round we go.

reply

Your revisionism on marriage has been corrected above, and using scientifically correct pronouns isn't "bigoted". Conservatives care about truth and what's right. Liberals myopically pursue power at all costs, even if it means breaking down the stability and health of the species. A truly compassionate society would classify gender "confusion" as a disorder and seek ways to treat it, not indulge and enable people's delusions to try to expand and solidify them into a new political constituency on the Democrat plantation.

reply

Wow, if you are using this board as an allegory for what pertains to actual society, you are truly uniformed and lost.

reply

Not just this board, but also the Trump board where many of us came from. Every post that talked about gender was from a Trumper or right-winger complaining that leftists talk too much about gender.

TYT, the biggest leftist news organization out there, which includes Kyle Kulinski, Sam Seder, David Pakman, etc... they don't push "500 genders" or anything close to it.

So tell me, where do YOU go to get all the links of leftists discussing gender?

reply

Television. Mostly from the news, others from celebrity activists, like Taylor Swift and her VMA speech regarding the Equality Act. They're not "links" or "sources", but the issue is currently trending in today's American culture.

reply

Heyy... welcome back to the guy who claimed black people were inherently violent, and when questioned why you think that, you played the race card that you know because you're black.

Television and T Swift are entities attempting to increase profits. Lady Gaga beat her to it ten years earlier. They see where the tide is headed and they want in on that cash.

reply

Heyy....nice to see you from the man/woman who claims that black people are only supposed to think a certain way therefore I cannot possibly be black. I enjoy the little intros you give me. Thank you.

Regardless, I agree with you on your T-Swift/Gaga cash grabbing. Nice to see opposing views can find common ground on SOMETHING.

reply

"Heyy....nice to see you from the man/woman who claims that black people are only supposed to think a certain way"

All I did was criticize you for playing the race card to win an argument you couldn't win without playing it.

You did the same thing in another post back then as well. Someone made a comment about field workers, and you said they were wrong because you lived in a town of field workers which means you knew better.

You can't show where I said black people are only supposed to think a certain way because I never said it. I merely called you out for being unable to win an argument without playing your silly card games. And it pissed you off.

reply

Ultraviolet, believe me when I say I'm on here for civil discourse and never once have you pissed me off. See, I believe that people can have opposing opinions and still get a long. To be frank, there is a post where you claimed that blacks are supposed to think a certain way around the time you refused to believe I was black.

Are we still going on about this? When you virtue signal for me, I will continue to call you out. When I'm logged on and interested in interacting, that is.

reply

I never said blacks are supposed to think a certain way. That is your diversion away from me calling you out for using your race to win an argument.

Unless you are confusing me with someone else. I remember you and frog going back and forth on a similar issue, where again you used your race to back you up.

reply

I brought up my race to tell you to stop virtue signalling for me. This concept isn't really hard to grasp, Ultraviolet. But, I'll try to be more patient. Bless your heart.

And Frogorama is a friggin awesome individual. Does frog still come on here? Love the youtube content.

reply

Utter BS. I said violence in black communities is from a lack of education, business opportunities, and poor infrastructure. You took issue with it and said black violence is due to black people just plain being more violent than white people as if its in their DNA. As I explained further on the impact of education and infrastructure, you touted your background saying you knew better because you were black.

Dteam6 made a joke that Trumpers wouldn't want to work in the fields. Criticizing those poor white people must have hurt your tender feelings, because you felt the need to, once again tout your background saying you knew better because, this time, you lived in a town of field workers.

I have no interest in changing the subject, guy. I know you're all about that life. You get yourself in these little corners and then your only way out is to say "frog, you're such a nice guy! Thanks for being so civil! Golly gee, bud, let's just agree to disagree okay, pal?" "Dteam what an amazing conversation we had! Thank you so much, you're awesome!"

And then you disappeared. lol

reply

I disappeared because Frog/dteam6 made sense and I had nothing to add. That usually happens when you find common ground and/or agree and see your own viewpoint was flawed. See, I can admit when I'm wrong because that's what adults do.

I grew up on the rough-side of town where blacks and hispanics were at each others throats for years. Not that you care about my history, but from my experience, black HAVE been more prone to violence out of sheer fear and/or self preservation. I don't think that's a far out concept.

I'm located in the Central Coast aka the Salad Bowl of the world, so yes, I know a thing or two about field workers and teenagers WANTING to work the fields for extra cash.

I don't have a problem staying on this subject, I'm just a little jarred that you're stuck 8-9 months in the past. Again, bless your heart, Ultraviolet. We can type about this and how wrong you are until your heart's content.

EDIT: I need to make dinner with the wife and kids, so I'll get back to you tomorrow, Ultraviolet. Always looking forward to exchanging ideas and viewpoints with you utraviolet.

reply

"I grew up on the rough-side of town where blacks and hispanics were at each others throats for years. Not that you care about my history, but from my experience, black HAVE been more prone to violence out of sheer fear and/or self preservation. I don't think that's a far out concept."

You are contradicting yourself here. Fear and self-preservation exist in dangerous places. Violence comes from a struggle to survive. You admit the struggle is there, but you ignore the real reasons why people struggle. Business opportunities. Education. Infrastructure. You focus on violence because it fits a narrative that you prefer over reality.

That is how you get stuck in a corner where you're contradicting yourself and have to schmooze your way out of it under the disguise of "civility." You are the Dave Rubin of moviechat. And the reason so many people dunk on Dave Rubin is because he makes it so easy that it feels like a crime to let him off the hook.

reply

I'm sorry, but can you please point out the contradiction? I struggled because their were gangsters (both black and hispanic) that were out for blood. Unfortunate to say, but when you're burying your brother and friends, things like education and infrastructure take a back seat. Again, I don't see a contradiction. Again, please point it out when my reality was self-preservation.

reply

How about taking one serious that goes to court wearing leather pants and says she is vegan and wants to stop BBQ's.

Perth vegan demands neighbour stop cooking barbecues

reply