Johnson, Bush, Trump

[silverscreenselect]

The splc is a hate group.

If you mean they hate racism, white nationalism, anti-Semitism, injustice, and bigotry, then I guess they qualify as a hate group. IF you want to know what a member of a real hate group is like, here's someone who took matters into his own hands in Dallas this week:

A Texas man accused of opening fire outside a Dallas courthouse uploaded right-wing memes to Facebook, including memes about Nazism and the Confederacy. Authorities said Brian Clyde, 22, attacked the Earle Cabell federal courthouse Monday morning before law enforcement killed him.

On Saturday, he uploaded a picture of 10 gun magazines. On Sunday, he uploaded a picture of a sword with the caption “A modern gladius to defend the modern Republic.” In late May, he posted a meme about quitting meme groups that forbid bullying, transphobia, and racism. An April meme suggested “the solution to all of our nation’s political problems” by incorporating some libertarian and eco-friendly ideologies into far-right authoritarianism, represented by a green flag with a Nazi swastika in the middle. A May 4 post defended Infowars founder Alex Jones for his claims about vast networks of pedophiles. Other posts suggested transphobic and anti-feminist views.

But it's the SPLC we have to worry about, not guys like this.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/dallas-fe ... ref=scroll

[BackInTex]

But that would be too complex an argument for you and it doesn't fit your tactical political mindset.

Gender on the basis of chromosomes or existence of one of two particular anatomical parts is too complex an argument for him.

[flockofseagulls104]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 2bcd41da0d

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/ ... liberalism

https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF17J27.pdf

But what do I know? I hate brown-skinned people. Ain't that right, Assshole?

[silverscreenselect]

But what do I know? I hate brown-skinned people. Ain't that right, Assshole?

I don't know if you hate brown-skinned people. I do know that you like to make fun of their names.

And I worry about your daughter-in-law's health. She might develop cancer from the number of times she has to bite her lip and tongue when visiting you.

[Beebs52]

But what do I know? I hate brown-skinned people. Ain't that right, Assshole?

I don't know if you hate brown-skinned people. I do know that you like to make fun of their names.

And I worry about your daughter-in-law's health. She might develop cancer from the number of times she has to bite her lip and tongue when visiting you.

Nasty.

[Bob78164]

But that would be too complex an argument for you and it doesn't fit your tactical political mindset.

Gender on the basis of chromosomes or existence of one of two particular anatomical parts is too complex an argument for him.

Here's the thing. With a few exceptions, gender is a social construct, not biological. You don't ask people to take a DNA test before deciding whether to refer to them as "him" or her." And you certainly don't think you're entitled to check their genitals before making that determination. You just use the pronoun appropriate to the gender (if any) they present themselves as adopting. Probably without thinking about it in most instances.

And that's why insisting on making that decision on the basis of DNA in all (or even most) circumstances is bigoted. It's why that insistence is hurtful. It's because you are not just refusing to respect, but actively rejecting, the social choice these people have elected to make for themselves. --Bob

[Estonut]

But that would be too complex an argument for you and it doesn't fit your tactical political mindset.

Gender on the basis of chromosomes or existence of one of two particular anatomical parts is too complex an argument for him.

Here's the thing. With a few exceptions, gender is a social construct, not biological. You don't ask people to take a DNA test before deciding whether to refer to them as "him" or her." And you certainly don't think you're entitled to check their genitals before making that determination. You just use the pronoun appropriate to the gender (if any) they present themselves as adopting. Probably without thinking about it in most instances.

And that's why insisting on making that decision on the basis of DNA in all (or even most) circumstances is bigoted. It's why that insistence is hurtful. It's because you are not just refusing to respect, but actively rejecting, the social choice these people have elected to make for themselves.

Do you not see the distinction between someone presenting themselves as another gender in day-to-day life vs. presenting themselves as another gender in competitive sports (where this discussion all started, IIRC)? I don't recall many (any?) articles about female-to-male trans people deciding they want to compete against biological men in competition. I doubt many here object to the former, but I understand the objection to the latter.

[Bob78164]

Gender on the basis of chromosomes or existence of one of two particular anatomical parts is too complex an argument for him.

Here's the thing. With a few exceptions, gender is a social construct, not biological. You don't ask people to take a DNA test before deciding whether to refer to them as "him" or her." And you certainly don't think you're entitled to check their genitals before making that determination. You just use the pronoun appropriate to the gender (if any) they present themselves as adopting. Probably without thinking about it in most instances.

And that's why insisting on making that decision on the basis of DNA in all (or even most) circumstances is bigoted. It's why that insistence is hurtful. It's because you are not just refusing to respect, but actively rejecting, the social choice these people have elected to make for themselves.

Do you not see the distinction between someone presenting themselves as another gender in day-to-day life vs. presenting themselves as another gender in competitive sports (where this discussion all started, IIRC)? I don't recall many (any?) articles about female-to-male trans people deciding they want to compete against biological men in competition. I doubt many here object to the former, but I understand the objection to the latter.

I think if you go back and look you'll see that I haven't had a word to say about this issue in the context of competitive sports, except (if memory serves) to register my objection for forcing trans boys to compete as girls. And that's one of the reasons I started my statement, "With a few exceptions." --Bob

[BackInTex]

Here's the thing. With a few exceptions, gender is a social construct, not biological. You don't ask people to take a DNA test before deciding whether to refer to them as "him" or her." And you certainly don't think you're entitled to check their genitals before making that determination. You just use the pronoun appropriate to the gender (if any) they present themselves as adopting. Probably without thinking about it in most instances.

And that's why insisting on making that decision on the basis of DNA in all (or even most) circumstances is bigoted. It's why that insistence is hurtful. It's because you are not just refusing to respect, but actively rejecting, the social choice these people have elected to make for themselves.

Do you not see the distinction between someone presenting themselves as another gender in day-to-day life vs. presenting themselves as another gender in competitive sports (where this discussion all started, IIRC)? I don't recall many (any?) articles about female-to-male trans people deciding they want to compete against biological men in competition. I doubt many here object to the former, but I understand the objection to the latter.

I think if you go back and look you'll see that I haven't had a word to say about this issue in the context of competitive sports, except (if memory serves) to register my objection for forcing trans boys to compete as girls. And that's one of the reasons I started my statement, "With a few exceptions." --Bob

Glad you admit this is a choice they make. That is an important fact. Especially when it comes to others' choices to not to be forced to celebrate such choices.

[Bob78164]

Do you not see the distinction between someone presenting themselves as another gender in day-to-day life vs. presenting themselves as another gender in competitive sports (where this discussion all started, IIRC)? I don't recall many (any?) articles about female-to-male trans people deciding they want to compete against biological men in competition. I doubt many here object to the former, but I understand the objection to the latter.

I think if you go back and look you'll see that I haven't had a word to say about this issue in the context of competitive sports, except (if memory serves) to register my objection for forcing trans boys to compete as girls. And that's one of the reasons I started my statement, "With a few exceptions." --Bob

Glad you admit this is a choice they make. That is an important fact. Especially when it comes to others' choices to not to be forced to celebrate such choices.

That's like saying you made a choice to be attracted to women instead of to men. When did you make that choice, by the way?

The "choice" trans individuals make is the choice to align their public gender identity with their actual (lived) gender identity, just as, in your youth, you made the choice to pursue romantic partnerships with women instead of with men. Framing the issue that way suggests that your pursuit of romantic relationships with other men was actually a viable option for you, which I rather doubt in light of your strong identification as hetero. Refusing to respect the decision of a trans individual to openly live their actual gender identity is an effort to hound them back into the closet.

And there's a difference between forcing someone to "celebrate" a choice and preventing them from discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. I'm not willing to tolerate discrimination on that basis, any more than I'm willing to tolerate discrimination on the basis of race or religion. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

But what do I know? I hate brown-skinned people. Ain't that right, Assshole?

I don't know if you hate brown-skinned people. I do know that you like to make fun of their names.

And I worry about your daughter-in-law's health. She might develop cancer from the number of times she has to bite her lip and tongue when visiting you.

Fuck you, assshole. That's all I have to say to you. You have gone way over the line. Who the hell do you think you are?

[Spock]

Very fine people in this day and age don't celebrate the Confederacy, a nation of traitors (and ultimately losers) that was created in order to further human bondage and subjugation.

It's funny how you don't see anyone in Germany wanting to "celebrate their heritage" by erecting statues of Hitler, Goebbels, or any of the military leaders, and they don't name streets or schools after them either.

The drive to "celebrate" the Confederacy came in the early 1900s as a means of asserting white racial superiority.

I have been chuckling today about Bob's "(and ultimately losers)" comment.

Obviously, you can do counterfactuals all day long, but we need to remember that, as late as the summer of 1864, if we don't have Grant and Sherman doing what they did, it is easily possible that a War-weary North elects McClellan and sues for Peace.

As it was, while Lincoln rocked the Electoral Vote-the popular vote was 2.2 million to 1.8 million-much closer than we like to think.

I peg the 1864 version of Bob as a "War-Weary" McClellan supporter.

I also don't think he would have been a strong advocate of having an alcoholic Grant and a Sherman with mental issues leading the 2 major armies.

Oh well, we all know that the 2019 version of Bob will be right in line when it is time to drop Grant and Sherman down the memory hole-for their stance on Indians (or something) if it hasn't already happened.

Grant and Sherman-it was that close-it doesn't happen without them.

[silverscreenselect]

Fuck you, assshole. That's all I have to say to you. You have gone way over the line. Who the hell do you think you are?

So, I guess that's one more thing you're waiting on an apology for.

[silverscreenselect]

Grant and Sherman-it was that close-it doesn't happen without them.

And, gee, if the South had only developed the atomic bomb by 1864, they might have won the war. The Confederacy was a failure in every way possible: diplomatically, economically, politically, and eventually militarily. Even with superior generalship, the Confederacy was outmanned and outgunned. Sherman and Grant pressed that advantage, but by 1864, the Union had gotten rid of most of the deadwood that cost them battles in the first couple of years of the war. Meade, Thomas, Sheridan, and others were solid generals who, by 1864, had sufficient resources to fight it out instead of retreating and regrouping as their predecessors had.

Sherman was not a great tactician; his troops lost several battles during the Atlanta campaign, including Kennesaw Mountain. He was smart enough to realize that the Confederates had to stay close to the railway lines for supplies, and he was able to maneuver around Johnston after every one of those battles and force the Confederates to retreat. Admittedly, Jefferson Davis helped Sherman out by replacing Johnston with Hood who essentially destroyed his entire army with futile attacks.

So, it's not just Sherman and Grant, because their replacements would likely have done pretty much the same thing.

[silverscreenselect]

As it was, while Lincoln rocked the Electoral Vote-the popular vote was 2.2 million to 1.8 million-much closer than we like to think.

2.2 million - 1.8 million translates to 55-45%

That's a 10 point margin, which is fairly hefty and exceeds the popular vote margin in 30 other presidential elections. It's also virtually the same margin that Lincoln won by in his first election (admittedly, the Southern states did not vote in 1864 and they had in 1860). Most politicians would be quite satisfied with a 10 point win in a major election.

[flockofseagulls104]

Fuck you, assshole. That's all I have to say to you. You have gone way over the line. Who the hell do you think you are?

So, I guess that's one more thing you're waiting on an apology for.

Not that I am expecting one, but if you ever happen to do some serious introspection and realise how disgusting and extremely offensive your posts are to me and to other people you are equating to your ridiculous strawman, I will read your apology and consider it. Until then, I will place you in the same category as someone who would call a black man the n-word to his face or even behind his back. You are contemptible and any judgements you have will be taken in that context. I have nothing more to say to you. I would also ask you to refrain from replying to or commenting on my posts to other people on this bored. Your opinions are irrelevant to me.

[silverscreenselect]

realise how disgusting and extremely offensive your posts are to me and to other people you are equating to your ridiculous strawman.

If by "other people you are equating to your ridiculous strawmen," you mean people who display their bias and when called out on it, instead of admitting it, instead beat their chests and proclaim vociferously how unbiased they are, there's only one other person I'm familiar with who fits in that category and that's Donald Trump. He won't be receiving any apologies from me either.

[Beebs52]

realise how disgusting and extremely offensive your posts are to me and to other people you are equating to your ridiculous strawman.

If by "other people you are equating to your ridiculous strawmen," you mean people who display their bias and when called out on it, instead of admitting it, instead beat their chests and proclaim vociferously how unbiased they are, there's only one other person I'm familiar with who fits in that category and that's Donald Trump. He won't be receiving any apologies from me either.

Your dil comment was vile.

[silverscreenselect]

realise how disgusting and extremely offensive your posts are to me and to other people you are equating to your ridiculous strawman.

If by "other people you are equating to your ridiculous strawmen," you mean people who display their bias and when called out on it, instead of admitting it, instead beat their chests and proclaim vociferously how unbiased they are, there's only one other person I'm familiar with who fits in that category and that's Donald Trump. He won't be receiving any apologies from me either.

Your dil comment was vile.

I guess I was called Assshole one time too many.

But you're right, the comment about cancer went too far and I do apologize for that. That's not something to joke about for anyone, especially about someone who hasn't ever been involved in this Bored. I've lost a relative to cancer and that's not something I'd wish or suggest on anyone.

The rest of my comments stand.

[Beebs52]

If by "other people you are equating to your ridiculous strawmen," you mean people who display their bias and when called out on it, instead of admitting it, instead beat their chests and proclaim vociferously how unbiased they are, there's only one other person I'm familiar with who fits in that category and that's Donald Trump. He won't be receiving any apologies from me either.

Your dil comment was vile.

I guess I was called Assshole one time too many.

Yeah. My go-to retort insult is usually some relative not involved...

[flockofseagulls104]

Yeah. My go-to retort insult is usually some relative not involved...

First, my request was ignored and second somehow trump was referenced out of the thin air. Pretty par for the course. My sentiments are redoubled.