When will the left admit that there is an attack on white males in our culture? - Donald Trump Discussion

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

What woman lied about sexual assault because she didn't want a white man on the Supreme Court?!?

Did I miss something?

How do you know whether or not Dr Christine Blasey Ford was lying? Personally, I think her testimony was very credible, and on a balance of evidence I think Justice Kavanaugh most likely did commit an attempted rape on her, but I can't categorically say for sure whether he is guilty or innocent. How can you?

As for white men, the truth is that every rave, every gender, every ethnicity, and every sexual persuasion, has its own a-holes and liars. The only difference is that white straight men still have most of the power and are far less likely than any other group to be subject to a hate crime on account of their identity. That said, lies and mistruths on account of any agenda and narrative, whether that agenda is left-wing, right-wing, pro-Trump, anti-Trump, pro-white men, or anti-white men, are not acceptable.

And just because white men have generally had it good in comparison to other groups, it doesn't justify lies, including a hate crime hoax, or the media's concerted attack on the Lincoln Memorial protesters, or, going further back, the Duke University lacrosse team, groups that were later discovered to be innocent, or, at the very least, not as guilty as they'd been reported to have been.

It all reminds me of the brilliant Tom Wolfe novel 'The Bonfire of the Vanities', in which the media's anti-rich straight white man narrative mattered far more than the truth.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (10966) 5 years ago

She admitted to lying, so that's pretty strong proof.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj7xYWXjMTgAhVpJzQIHSaTD50QzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbc4i.com%2Fnews%2Fu-s-world%2F-i-was-angry-and-i-sent-it-accuser-referred-to-fbi-after-recanting-kavanaugh-rape-claim%2F1569857022&psig=AOvVaw0c9LhtXwA7vcgE8v-NR6md&ust=1550538503683908

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I just tried your link. It doesn't work.

Quelle surprise...

reply

[–] Burk48917 (10966) 5 years ago

https://www.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accuser-judy-munro-leighton-2018-11

Not sure why it copied the link like that. Either way, here is another. Her name is Judy Munro-Leighton, Google it if for some reason you actually want the truth. How much do you think it says that this story didn't get much play in the media? A woman ADMITS she lied a out sexual assault to keep a man from getting a job on the Supreme Court, and you've never heard it. It supports my point very strongly.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

This Judy Munro-Leighton is clearly a disgrace.

As much as I loathe Justice Brett Kavanaugh's politics, we cannot, under any circumstances, allow people to lie and slander in order to besmirch a person's name, because we can all play that game.

And today it might be someone on the left making a false allegation in order to bring down a conservative, but tomorrow it might be someone on the right making a false allegation to bring down a liberal.

However as despicable as Munro-Leighton's false accusation was, it in no way has any bearing on the allegation and testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (if anything, Munro-Leighton owes Dr. Ford an apology, because its lies like Munro-Leighton's that have the unfortunate potential of discrediting other, genuine, allegations). Admittedly, I can not say with 100% certainty that Justice Kavanaugh is guilty of the attempted rape Dr. Ford accused him of (personally, I think Dr. Ford's testimony sounds credible), but, likewise, you cannot say with 100% certainty that he is innocent.

reply

[–] WhyNowTho (43) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Burk48917 (10966) 5 years ago

Who said it did?

reply

[–] WhyNowTho (43) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

He's also decided that the Jussie Smullett investigation is done and he's a proven liar too.

All that so he can have THREE people as examples of the entire country attacking the poor beleaguered white male...

I'm a white male and B.S. like this topic just makes me embarrassed.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] B1cKsurN (14644) 5 years ago

They think they've been promised a seat at the table. If they actually read history, they'd know the first ones removed after the revolution will be them, the useful idiots that helped complete it.

The irony is that they'll be right next to the rest of us in the gulag telling is how racist we are and they aren't, and their death is different somehow.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

Thug? LOL

Well you're obviously a racist incel alt-right white nationalist.

Though I wasn't about to take you seriously at that first reply, which looks more like parody.

Did you make this account because you think I put your other on ignore? I have no accounts on ignore, FYI. I don't use it.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Burk48917 (10966) 5 years ago

You're being pretty selective on your assumption of what I was replying to, but obviously you had to for your feigned outrage and ignorance.This is what I was addressing:
"What woman lied about sexual assault because she didn't want a white man on the Supreme Court?!?

Did I miss something?"
I never mentioned Ford's name, or implied it was her. I also noticed you didn't address the other issues, OR the fact that a woman did indeed about lying. Typical of you lefties, selective outrage and and obtuse logic. I'll say this, you represent your party well, because they all do the same thing. Have a nice day cupcake.

reply

[–] WhyNowTho (43) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Burk48917 (10966) 5 years ago

So you get to pick which comment I was replying too? Good one 🤣. Also, it's the second time you've completely ignored the other points, nice selective outrage pumpkin'.

reply

[–] WhyNowTho (43) 5 years ago

YOU picked the comment and hit reply on that comment and you proceeded to lie your ass off.

"What woman lied about sexual assault because she didn't want a white man on the Supreme Court?!?

Did I miss something?

How do you know whether or not Dr Christine Blasey Ford was lying?"

It's funny how you now say you were only replying to the first sentence and not to the other two sentences that demand clarification and cite Dr. Ford by name.

HILARIOUS.

Did I miss something, the poster demands, after the first sentence. How do you know *DR. FORD* was lying, the poster follows up -- and this is the only part of the post that DEMANDS PROOF. So you're saying you completely ignored the follow-up questions in your reply: "She admitted to lying, so that's pretty strong proof."

You still insist you were replying only to this: "What woman lied about sexual assault because she didn't want a white man on the Supreme Court?!?" But but but - this question doesn't ask for proof. Just asks for a name.

Answer me this, dummy. Which part of that question, which you now claim you were replying to, is asking for proof?

HILARIOUS.

The rest of your point is nonsensical, because ANY WOMAN can make baseless claims but only the credible Dr. Ford was vetted and allowed to testify. Whereas this other woman was not. Maybe she lied to cast doubt on Dr. Ford and make Ford's story less credible. And maybe it'll make it easier for some dum-dum on the internet to purposely conflate the two women, like you have done. In any case, moron, Dr. Ford testified -- if she lied, charge her with perjury. If she defamed, Justice Bretty Cocker should sue for defamation.

Something tells me neither is happening -- because both instances would involve thorough investigations into the accusations.

And Bretty boy doesn't want that.

As predicted -- YOU KEPT DIGGING. Now dig on further. Keep trying. You're funny to me.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (14644) 5 years ago

If you have to add the connotation "credible" to something, its probably the complete opposite.

reply

[–] BreakbeatSavant (413) 5 years ago

You made quite a leap in logic there in your last sentence. You went from citing the reprehensible actions of a few nutjobs and one example of irresponsible media coverage to projecting those acts as supported by an entire political party and implicitly supported by liberals that support that party. You either didn't think through your question or you're deliberately reaching.

But to answer your question directly, I'm sure liberals don't feel anything about it because the premise of your question is wrong.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (10966) 5 years ago

Those things all represent a pattern. The left consistently accuses white men of being privileged,yet they seem to be the only group that gets horribly represented,and so casually condemned in the news, and misrepresented publicly. Seems like everyone else is awarded the benefit of the doubt in most situations. Anyway,which troll that I've already blocked are you? I doubt it's a coincidence that this is your first post. Your obtuse and selective logic seem familiar.

reply

[–] BreakbeatSavant (413) 5 years ago

I'm just letting you know you're engaging in what in logic is referred to as a causal fallacy. This is a logical breakdown where you're reaching a conclusion of causality without evidence. In this case you're concluding the Democratic party supports the fraudulent actions or misreporting of these people or media, yet you have not provided evidence that they do.

It doesn't matter how many instances of fraud you use to establish a "pattern of behavior". Until you can establish the Democratic party supports fraud as a means to further their political agenda your argument will continue to be flawed. The way to do this would be to provide examples of Democratic party members supporting people they know to be actively engaging in fraud to further their agenda.

I'm just trying to educate you so you can better understand why your conclusion is wrong.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (10966) 5 years ago

Are you really trying to suggest that the Democrats DON'T engage in identity politics. 🤣😂
Anyway, I'm going to block you again soon, because it's pretty obvious this is a sock account from someone I've already blocked. Unless you created a movie group account a couple days ago just to reply to this thread, it's pretty obviously the truth. I can't even begin to imagine how sad your life is that you'd go through that much effort to reply to someone that obviously doesn't respect your opinion.😂

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Weak stuff Burk. Way to show what a fragile snowflake you are.

reply

[–] MagaMoron (0) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"Whaaaaa society is no longer 100% skewed in our favour. It's just 95% skewed and our butts are mad hurt over it"

-white males

The OP seems to be complaining about hoax acts of hate crime, falsely attributed to white men, and media stories blaming white men for bad behaviour that are subsequently shown to be erroneous or not quite as clear-cut as first reported.

Assuming you're right and '95% of society is skewed in favour of straight white men', do you think that somehow justifies these cases? Do you think that because straight white men, as a group, have enjoyed disproportionate levels of social power, it is therefore justifiable to slander, libel and misrepresent individual straight white men? Do the straight white men in these cases carry the can for every instance of straight white male privilege throughout history?

Or do you think, as I do, that instead of reducing everyone to nothing more than a representative of an identity group they have no control over, it might be smarter, wiser and better to treat everyone as an individual and responsible only for their own individual actions?

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Never trust a person who deletes their own post.

Noted: Do not trust the poster named 'MagaMoron'.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

He's an admitted parody of the Trump supporters here, I think he deleted because you took him seriously.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Was I taking him seriously?

I realised he was mocking white males. I was questioning the assumptions behind that mockery.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

I think he interpreted it as being taken seriously.

Also I wouldn't say that the 95% joke was justification, I think it was solely to cast the issue as small fish.

I'm a white male, and about a year or so ago, I encountered the first instance of having casual racial prejudice directed at me, combined with religious prejudice (casual in that the person speaking didn't consciously intend to cast prejudice).

I was at least 40, I'm now 41. I was in the elevator of my office building with an orthodox Jewish man about my age, and it was a Jewish holiday of some sort, I forget what part of the year this was.

He asked me if I was a Jew, possibly to then ask why I wasn't dressed appropriately for the holiday.

When I said that I wasn't, and amusingly noted that I have been mistaken for Jewish before, he responded with "Well, I'm sure you're a good person anyway."

I found it more interesting, psychologically and socially, than anything else. I saw the casual offensiveness of turning to morality and the importance of the term "anyway" at the end, but I still saw the encounter as "small fish" and not indicative of anything more than an example of the insular nature of Orthodox Jewish people.

Now if this happened regularly, it would be different, but 99.99% of the time, aka "every other time," I have the privilege of considering racial prejudice to be a social issue instead of a personal struggle.

The tricky thing here though is whether or not I can truly frame it as racial... Perhaps his statement was 100% religious? As an atheist, I expect to encounter religious prejudice... his comment was not about atheism but rather about everything non-Judaism.

Still, having Judaism being a cultural religion that is mostly the Jewish people makes his comment uncertain, since he didn't specify why I must be a good person "anyway." Was it because I am not a member of Judaism, or because I am not Jewish? "A good person" can be a cultural statement just as easily as a religious one.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it reads to me as if the Jewish man was simply making a joke (have you seen the film 'Independence Day'? Judd Hirsch's character makes a similar witticism in response to James Rebhorn's advising him that he's not Jewish: "well, nobody's perfect").

Anyway, I'm not going to pretend that most of the prejudice directed towards straight cis white men is in any way as serious as the majority of abuse directed at minority and historically oppressed groups like women, POC, the LGBTQ community, and so on, but just because something is 'not as bad' it doesn't mean it is justified.

Moreover, if you're the one at the receiving end of discrimination, it's of very little comfort to be told that it's a rare occurrence.

For instance, the number of men who are victims of rape and domestic violence is extremely small in comparison to the number of women who experience such abuse however, if you're the guy who has actually been raped or physically assaulted, it's not terribly reassuring to be told that you're a rarity; if anything, it might feel even worse, because not only are you an anomaly, you haven't got a support network to help you cope with your experiences.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

"Perhaps I'm wrong, but it reads to me as if the Jewish man was simply making a joke"

I was able to rule that out because he works in the building, and I can guarantee this guy would not make a joke. He's quite stoic. I don't even see him smile. Plus that's not the kind of humor one would tend to use on a stranger, but maybe he just has an awkward sense of humor?

I think a joke is less likely simply because so many Jewish people are good at comedy, and tend to know the right circumstances for any specific joke.

"if you're the guy who has actually been raped or physically assaulted, it's not terribly reassuring to be told that you're a rarity; if anything, it might feel even worse, because not only are you an anomaly, you haven't got a support network"

Yes, I can see that, just like how men are so much less likely to report physical/sexual abuse from a dominating wife. The lack of support combines with masculine pride and turns into quiet shame. I'm sure that gets compounded by that victim mentality of self-blame, which on the female side has all kinds of names like "Battered wife syndrome" and so on.

The most overwhelming gender delineation that still gets put on the back burner is violence and murder, a field that is overwhelmingly dominated by male perpetrators. As a nonviolent male, I don't know what this is all about. Some people claim the statistic is largely due to the presence of testosterone:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/

There is possibly a lot more biochemical influence on behavior than what anyone wants to discuss, though... Because society is more intent on responsibility (the positive perspective) and blame (the negative perspective).

I've encountered that personally as well, because I have had a major manic episode. The effect on my judgment and behavior is very interesting to consider in hindsight, as I did not know I was Bipolar before it, nor did I understand Bipolar Disorder.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I'm going to make a contentious, potentially self-aggrandising comment here, but seeing as we're constantly being told, with admittedly good reason, that men are much more inclined towards violence than women, does that mean those of us who aren't violent are the exception, and (here's the contentious part) that we should feel proud of ourselves for acting contrary to our biological and evolutionary instincts?

I know a lot of feminists will find my, part tongue-in-cheek, question offensive; after all, why should a man feel good about himself simply for not being violent? But when the media is dominated by violent, abusive, obnoxious, selfish, sexist, ignorant and destructive men, it's hard for those of us who (hopefully) don't fit any of those descriptors to feel like anything but an anomaly.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

Truly violent behavior is overall from the minority, so I'm not sure about being exceptions. I'd have to set aside spats and minor fights, which tend to be more present in youth, to separate those examples from actual criminal behavior and the intent to cause major injury all the way to death.

As for myself and what compels me, I may have a lower testosterone level than many males. I have less body hair than average, I couldn't grow full facial hair until around 24, and muscle building is a slower process for me. Plus, I'm bi, and all my life I've been more in touch with "my feminine side."

I'm still a lothario at heart, though (a respectful one). In fact, one of my favorite personal jokes since I was a teenager is saying "I got 'in touch' with my feminine side, and she slapped me!"

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

criminal behaviour you say?

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10212) 5 years ago

Probably never because the left contains a lot of white males who do not feel attacked.

Reports have shown that conservatives typically have an amygdala that is more susceptible to fear.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/

Naturally if you are more susceptible to fear then you are more likely to feel attacked even when there is nothing attacking you or at the very least something very minor that your mind has inflated to be a threat. And since white males are running the show for the conservative wing in this country that is why the narrative became white males are under attack.

Theres no better example than the fact illegal border crossings are down from decades ago along with crime from illegal immigrants. Yet its a national emergency because Trump said so and white males are under attack because a majority agrees his wall is a stupid idea.

The god's honest truth is you are susceptible to fear and the party of fear-mongerers has you by the balls.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Reports have shown that conservatives typically have an amygdala that is more susceptible to fear.

I know you will ignore me, as you always do, but what I am about to say is quite important.

Even though I am myself a left-winger, I have been diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder, a mental illness that constitutes as a disability and can be very difficult to live with, alongside my OCD.

Thus, I also suffer from high levels of fear (including, as it happens, fear of being a racist or a misogynist etcetera - I wonder if the conservatives you speak of share that particular fear), and thus I know how terrible living with high levels of fear can be.

It's a disability, and thus you have inadvertently hit on why I think I have a lot more sympathy, even empathy, for people on the political right, as much as my politics are anathema to theirs.

The people who possess an amygdala that is more susceptible to fear have an illness/disability. They need sympathy. NOT condemnation.

You don't discriminate against people who suffer from eating disorders, or body dysmorphia, or PTSD, do you? So why discriminate and hate on people who experience high levels of fear on account of their biology? If anything, you should be supporting and sympathising with them. There is a term for those people who do otherwise: 'bigotry'.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

As a side note, this 'scientific' study strikes me as utter bollocks.

It attributes a higher capacity to handle uncertainty to liberalism, and yet it is progressive liberals, of which I include myself, in the UK who have displayed a much higher level of fear and anxiety over the uncertainty surrounding Brexit than political conservatives.

Likewise, Trump in the US represents chaos. He doesn't play by the rules, unlike his moderate and diplomatic predecessors, and 2016 Presidential rival, Hillary Clinton. Trump, in short, is a loose cannon. And yet, if this scientific theory were true, it would suggest that the uncertainty represented by Trump would find more favour with liberals than security-conscious right-wingers.

Finally, I am a card-carrying member of a left-wing party. My voting record is unimpeachably left-wing/progressive. If you doubt me, I'm quite happy to invite you to follow me to the polling station next time there's an election in my region and peer over my shoulder to check I'm putting a mark in favour of the most liberal candidate. And yet, if we were to go by this BS 'scientific' study, I'd surely be a militantly right-wing conservative, since I have been diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder and I've a life almost entirely ruled by fear.

I guess it goes to show: don't trust everything you read in a scientific journal. Some of these scientists have bugger all clue about the real world. They'll tell you black is white, and left is right, and that a person is a staunch conservative even as that same person puts a clear mark against yet another left-wing candidate.

reply

[–] MinorityRules15 (958) 5 years ago

It's nothing new. The hardcore punk band Minor Threat wrote a song called "Guilty of Being White" in 1981:

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

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

"And yet, if this scientific theory were true, it would suggest that the uncertainty represented by Trump would find more favour with liberals than security-conscious right-wingers."

Or you could be misinterpreting what you think "security" means to the right wingers that make up Trump's base. It could be they find greater security and comfort in Trump's xenophobia and hostility to other races and immigration, which seems to be the prevailing issue they find most threatening to them.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"Or you could be misinterpreting what you think "security" means to the right wingers that make up Trump's base. It could be they find greater security and comfort in Trump's xenophobia and hostility to other races and immigration, which seems to be the prevailing issue they find most threatening to them."

Sure, and I agree with that analysis, but the fact that you have to add that caveat casts some doubt on the credibility of the 'scientific' report referred to by ultravioletx.

It goes to show that, contrary to that report, the key factor that separates libs, like myself, from cons, is not 'fear' (like I say, I suffer from intense anxiety, and thus fear, more than most, and I know numerous people who share my Anxiety Disorder diagnosis who are further to the political left than I am); it's prejudice.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

I wouldn't say my caveat casts doubt on the credibility of the scientific report when it actually casts doubt on your theory on why it's wrong. I'm positing you're misinterpreting what 'certainty' means to Trump supporters who find greater uncertainty and fear from immigration and other races.

But I also recognize, without having yet read the report in detail, your personal anecdotal evidence could mean it's wrong or that there are additional variables, neuroscientific or otherwise, that we aren't considering. But, I wouldn't expect their findings to hold for everyone anyway given the variability of brain structure and mutability of genetics. You could also be an exception. At first glance I wouldn't rule out this study being 'wrong' as much as there being much more there about the neuroscience we've yet to uncover.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

So, you're saying I'm 'special'?

Well, I certainly don't feel that way. I'm just an Ordinary Joe. I'm nothing special (if only). I suspect there are millions just like me.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Could be. :)

But as far as I can tell, this study is not concluding that political outlook is hardwired at birth by the size of one's amygdala.

Looking at the study right now it says more liberal students tended to have a larger anterior cingulate cortexes (ACC) a structure of the brain associated with monitoring uncertainty and handling conflicting information. This is noted as consistent with previous research suggesting that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views.

So this one of those additional nueroscientific variables I'm talking about. Without knowing the size of your ACC we can't even jump to any conclusions that you're an anomaly or that the study is flawed. It could be the size of your amygdala is overcome by the larger than average size of your ACC.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10212) 5 years ago

That could certainly explain how leftists are more capable of handling nuance whereas conservatives tend to see things more in black and white absolutes.

reply

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 5 years ago

Those issues are abstractions. That's the cerebral cortex not the amygdala. Whites and males have larger cerebral cortexes on average.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

The feeling of security has everything to do with the feeling of fear that undergirds it. Your argument is an abstraction.

reply

[–] Bosdog6777 (817) 5 years ago

You should try being a white man taking a stroll through Eastside Detroit then see if you still believe this nonsense if you make it out alive

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Eminem doesn't seem to have that problem.

reply

[–] Bosdog6777 (817) 5 years ago

Why do you think he was such an angry young man?

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

My guess is because he was born poor to a mother that was, uh, straight trailer trash and that's putting it kindly.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10212) 5 years ago

Eastside Detroit... LOL. More like gamergate where video game neckbeards felt their beloved big boobed pixelated GFs were being taken away from them. More like Disney's Star Wars where awkward nerds felt attacked because a girl could swing a lightsaber with less training than Luke Skywalker.

The fear of diversity came from stuff in the media. Not some place like Detroit.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Frogarama (12942) 5 years ago

"Probably never because the left contains a lot of white males who do not feel attacked."

One thing I don't get is men who react to the "MeToo" movement as an attack on males in general.

I know who are the targets of that movement, and I have no issue or "guilt" because I know I do not fall into the category of men that are being targeted. Hell, as a man on the "inside" of that gender, I have access to a level of honesty from other men than most women have, so I know for sure that there are men who still see women by default as second-class citizens.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

If you know men who think and act like that, shouldn't you report them?

If I'm in the company of a man who displays any form of sexism, I call him out. Fortunately, I don't tend to fraternise with serious misogynists, and the forms of sexism I am obliged to call out tend to be relatively minor.

I don't hang out with men who see women as 'second-class citizens', and although I've heard of these men, I've never been about to see or hear them behave this way. Maybe they know I'd disapprove of their behaviour which is why they don't act that way in my company, but it does therefore make it very difficult for me to do anything about them.

reply

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 5 years ago

Probably never because the left contains a lot of white males who do not feel attacked.

Reports have shown that conservatives typically have an amygdala that is more susceptible to fear.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/

Naturally if you are more susceptible to fear then you are more likely to feel attacked even when there is nothing attacking you or at the very least something very minor that your mind has inflated to be a threat. And since white males are running the show for the conservative wing in this country that is why the narrative became white males are under attack.

Black people are the ones with larger amygdalas, but it's white leftists fretting over microagressions.

Conservatives tend to be far less emotional all around. Older rather than younger, male rather than female, etc...

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10212) 5 years ago

"Black people are the ones with larger amygdalas"

Lol I don't think amygdala means what you think it means.

"it's white leftists fretting over microagressions."

There's a big difference between being annoyed by something and being afraid. Reactionary conservatism is the epitome of fear.

You can't deny any of it either. Every policy conservatives fight for revolves around "keeping us safe" when every year we are safer than we've ever been. Pretty much your whole reply validates what I wrote.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (10966) 5 years ago

This post must have REALLY ruffled the feathers feathers of about 8 liberal crybabies on this board. I don't have that many people blocked, but I only see about 6 posts, but the main page shows 46 replies! 😂🤣😅 Don't worry snowflakes, I'm sure you'll keep lying and complaining and eventually you'll get a fake oppression story that is hard enough to prove as a lie, so you can hang your hat on it being "fact". More and more we see the left choosing to lie and cheat to get ahead, and justifying it as progressive at all costs. It's amazing you guys can even look yourself in the mirror in the he morning.

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16110) 5 years ago

So because this one actor staged a hate crime, that implies that White America is under siege from the darkies and feminazis?

reply

[–] Burk48917 (10966) 5 years ago

Hardly a one time incident. If you actually want the truth, this article goes over just some of the recent incidents. It doesn't surprise me you think this is exclusive, because this gets downplayed way to much in the media.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/18/hoax-hate-crimes-list/

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16110) 5 years ago

Oh the Daily Caller? A publication that hires out white nationalists and apologists? That's unbiased.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (10966) 5 years ago

They have specific names and links for sources. You could easily validate or discredit those if actually chose to want to learn the truth,but I suspect the truth would interfere with your desired narrative and perception.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10212) 5 years ago

White males are more privileged than they've been in decades. Just think about what Trump has gotten away with. His comments about Rosie O'Donnell. "Bleeding from her wherever" to Megyn Kelly. "Lock her up" for Hillary when his admin was caught doing worse. "Grab her by the pussy" just because he's wealthy. You can literally call Mexicans criminals and rapists which you couldn't get away with ten years ago. Trump has proven multiple times that all the prohibitions against white males are in your head.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (10966) 5 years ago

Hey, you followed through and actually checked in to these hate crimes, right. You made it sound like you wanted the truth, not blind hatred based on lies, so you checked into this further, right? Because if these are all true, it sort of contradicts your narrative,right?

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16110) 5 years ago

Were these the ONLY hate crimes in America? Of course not but you don't care about that because it contradicts your narrative.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (10966) 5 years ago

I'm not sure if you noticed, but that wasn't really an answer to the question.

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16110) 5 years ago

Not sure if you noticed, but I don't get a shit.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (10966) 5 years ago

Don't get a shit? I'm not sure what that means?

reply

[–] slimone (7996) 5 years ago

Attack on white males???? Payback from African Americans, Latinos, Asians and other people of color over the hundreds of years of prejudice and bias.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (10966) 5 years ago

Are you suggesting white males have never been the victim of prejudice? Or are you saying it's ok to be prejudice against white males because other minorities have experienced it before? Either way, your ignorance is apparent. Educate yourself before saying stupid shit next time.

reply

[–] slimone (7996) 5 years ago

No I'm not saying that it's ok to be prejudice against white males. Has this happened to you, or somebody else? What was the occasion? I'm not ignorant, by the way. Can't you be a t least a little polite? You don't know me, do you.

reply

[–] Burk48917 (10966) 5 years ago

Sorry, I'm not polite towards selective racism based on falsities. You literally said it's paybacks against whites, in case you wonder what you said was racist. Yes, lots of whites , including myself have endured racism. White slavery has existed in many parts of the world, and all races have owned slaves as part of their history. If you want to have a polite conversation, perhaps you should start your side of it that way next time.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10212) 5 years ago

When will the right admit there is an uptick in hate crimes inspired by Trump's election? When will the right admit that only a tiny percentage of them are hoaxes? The way I see it the right has a lot more to admit to.

reply