Should be obvious what this person's agenda is now. And that's not to contribute sincerely to the discussions on here.
Careful DD, wouldn't want you to get another strike.
This also is not open for public discussion. And for the record, no one here has a public rap sheet with the moderating team. If any user has received a "strike" (and the proper term is "warning" here), no other user outside the moderating team is informed of its existence--I know you don't know if someone else has ever received a warning.
Public scolding is not how they do things here; that entire subject is confidential.
You have a mole hun, a patriot if you will.
I jest but I would suggest you click the flag button and allow a mod to correct my transgressions and I will see to it that I do not make those errors again in the future.
I will flag for the public scolding I just received from you.
Should be obvious what this person's agenda is now. And that's not to contribute sincerely to the discussions on here.
Careful DD, wouldn't want you to get another strike.
This also is not open for public discussion. And for the record, no one here has a public rap sheet with the moderating team. If any user has received a "strike" (and the proper term is "warning" here), no other user outside the moderating team is informed of its existence--I know you don't know if someone else has ever received a warning.
Public scolding is not how they do things here; that entire subject is confidential.
"Rationing" is the main argument that was used on the right against both Obamacare and is currently used against Medicare for All. Apparently it's a-ok if it's because of botched pandemic response:
I was notified by my roman catholic in-laws today that the pope has chosen a Black American, Washington D.C. Archbishop Wilton Gregory, to Cardinal. This is a push in the right direction for the roman catholic church and hope to see more diversity in their ranks. The roman catholic world is not just white men.
I was notified by my roman catholic in-laws today that the pope has chosen a Black American, Washington D.C. Archbishop Wilton Gregory, to Cardinal. This is a push in the right direction for the roman catholic church and hope to see more diversity in their ranks. The roman catholic world is not just white men.
I'm fairly certain an African Cardinal was among the heavy favorites in the last two Papal Conclaves. He just didn't get the votes either time. The current one being from South American makes sense, as Catholicism is immensely popular in those countries.
I don't see how Biden and the democratic party can loosen the grip on the lobby that is keeping American health care in the stone ages. The hoops that Obama had to jump through, it's a tough climb.
I don't see how Biden and the democratic party can loosen the grip on the lobby that is keeping American health care in the stone ages. The hoops that Obama had to jump through, it's a tough climb.
He can't, which is he isn't promising the moon. He also doesn't seem to believe in Medicare for All. A public option added to the ACA would be a very positive step, which is what they are on the record as pushing for. I doubt even this gets done, but at least it's on the table. I'll take this over Republicans lying to my face about it for four years, and continuing to insist they have a plan when they know full well they don't.
I don't see how Biden and the democratic party can loosen the grip on the lobby that is keeping American health care in the stone ages. The hoops that Obama had to jump through, it's a tough climb.
He can't, which is he isn't promising the moon. He also doesn't seem to believe in Medicare for All. A public option added to the ACA would be a very positive step, which is what they are on the record as pushing for. I doubt even this gets done, but at least it's on the table. I'll take this over Republicans lying to my face about it for four years, and continuing to insist they have a plan when they know full well they don't.
The responsibility for this falls more on congress than the presidency. Though obviously you need a Democratic president to not veto a bill. The question on whether this is viable or not will hinge on how the Senate elections shake out.
Just wish people would get into the streets and protest for free health care and other human rights like they have this summer. NOT taking validation away from those protests just wish we would be as aggressive and passionate is all. sigh
Maralargo is taxed as a business meaning in Florida law that it cannot be a residence.
Bottom line:. Republicans want a perverted sense of "law and order" consisting of in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
We the people are in group two.
"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."
The Mike Huckabee tweet is real... That link dies, but it's easy to find the original thread on Google. It's actually still up as of right now, on Twitter.
Even if Mike Huckabee is lying about trying to submit ballots on behalf of his dead parents, he's still encouraging his followers to commit voter fraud like he pretended to do.
If he's not lying, he committed a felony. I doubt he'll be prosecuted for it, though, even if the ballots he submitted turned up as evidence.
The Mike Huckabee tweet is real... That link dies, but it's easy to find the original thread on Google. It's actually still up as of right now, on Twitter.
Even if Mike Huckabee is lying about trying to submit ballots on behalf of his dead parents, he's still encouraging his followers to commit voter fraud like he pretended to do.
If he's not lying, he committed a felony. I doubt he'll be prosecuted for it, though, even if the ballots he submitted turned up as evidence.
Ehh, I get what people are saying about it, but I think this is a joke. A bad joke of course.
I don't think any of that is meant sincerely, it's instead a sarcastic "lol you can easily rig mail in ballots". What I mean is, his point isn't "I have done election fraud and you should too" but rather that you cannot trust mail in votes. It's still ugly rhetoric, of course.
The Mike Huckabee tweet is real... That link dies, but it's easy to find the original thread on Google. It's actually still up as of right now, on Twitter.
Even if Mike Huckabee is lying about trying to submit ballots on behalf of his dead parents, he's still encouraging his followers to commit voter fraud like he pretended to do.
If he's not lying, he committed a felony. I doubt he'll be prosecuted for it, though, even if the ballots he submitted turned up as evidence.
Ehh, I get what people are saying about it, but I think this is a joke. A bad joke of course.
I don't think any of that is meant sincerely, it's instead a sarcastic "lol you can easily rig mail in ballots". What I mean is, his point isn't "I have done election fraud and you should too" but rather that you cannot trust mail in votes. It's still ugly rhetoric, of course.
Huckabee's jokes are notoriously horrible, so I agree it's his usual lame attempt at humor. I'm more offended he raised his daughter to claim to be an upstanding Christian while lying to the country on a daily basis with no qualms for two years, and then pretend after she's been gone awhile that it never took place. This is the woman who was forced to ADMIT to Mueller that she lied to the press and the public, lest she perjure herself.
The Mike Huckabee tweet is real... That link dies, but it's easy to find the original thread on Google. It's actually still up as of right now, on Twitter.
Even if Mike Huckabee is lying about trying to submit ballots on behalf of his dead parents, he's still encouraging his followers to commit voter fraud like he pretended to do.
If he's not lying, he committed a felony. I doubt he'll be prosecuted for it, though, even if the ballots he submitted turned up as evidence.
Ehh, I get what people are saying about it, but I think this is a joke. A bad joke of course.
I don't think any of that is meant sincerely, it's instead a sarcastic "lol you can easily rig mail in ballots". What I mean is, his point isn't "I have done election fraud and you should too" but rather that you cannot trust mail in votes. It's still ugly rhetoric, of course.
"It's just a joke" these people say as they push the boundaries of what acceptable until they actually do it.
Just like Trump's only joking that he wants 12 more years. Everything's either joke or locker room talk or he didn't mean it that way.
It's not a joke, there's an angle there. He's encouraging people to commit voter fraud. He's intentionally undermining US elections.
The Mike Huckabee tweet is real... That link dies, but it's easy to find the original thread on Google. It's actually still up as of right now, on Twitter.
Even if Mike Huckabee is lying about trying to submit ballots on behalf of his dead parents, he's still encouraging his followers to commit voter fraud like he pretended to do.
If he's not lying, he committed a felony. I doubt he'll be prosecuted for it, though, even if the ballots he submitted turned up as evidence.
Ehh, I get what people are saying about it, but I think this is a joke. A bad joke of course.
I don't think any of that is meant sincerely, it's instead a sarcastic "lol you can easily rig mail in ballots". What I mean is, his point isn't "I have done election fraud and you should too" but rather that you cannot trust mail in votes. It's still ugly rhetoric, of course.
"It's just a joke" these people say as they push the boundaries of what acceptable until they actually do it.
Just like Trump's only joking that he wants 12 more years. Everything's either joke or locker room talk or he didn't mean it that way.
It's not a joke, there's an angle there. He's encouraging people to commit voter fraud. He's intentionally undermining US elections.
We don't really need Mike Huckabee's Twitter feed to spell out what Republicans think about voting rights. They've been more than happy to provide us an encyclopedia of evidence by their official actions for the last 15 years.
They are the party of suppressing the vote. The good news is, based on early numbers, they are failing despite all their efforts. And I do not see how Trump can win a high-turnout election. His entire strategy in 2016 was to bring both candidates into the mud to deflate turnout. It isn't happening this time. Certain parts of the country have already reached their 2016 vote totals 8 days out. Knock on wood, but this is far more likely to be an absolute blow-out than a result Trump can contest, much less win. If it's not, then the political polling industry will die on November 3rd.
Hypothetical. Election day and trump wins his second term, not eke by but flat out win. Where does America go from there, do people accept the win gracefully or will there be protests and riots, general unrest.
I've been thinking about this for a few weeks now and have had many discussions at the dinner table, with friends and other family, colleagues and clients, even people waiting in line to grab a coffee. Most people have unanimously said one word that stuck out to me, fear. Not just of a trump win but even from a Biden win. Some bring up retaliation from the right and the excuse explained was that trump was not left to be President and do his duty with all the impeachment and russia stuff. Others said from the left not being upfront about packing the courts and Democrats will make Biden go on sick leave to make Harris President.
The overall emotion of America from what I see is fear, not optimism, hope or relief but fear. Fear will make you give up your rights or it can make you be much more alert about your surroundings. Being alert will make you understand that democracy is under attack and we must stand up and fight or curl up at home and sign anything that will make the bad men leave you alone. People are fuckin scared about both candidates right now and that can never be a good thing.
When state leaders are not respected by the majority something ugly and evil will pop up to fill that void. That thought gives me fear.
The Mike Huckabee tweet is real... That link dies, but it's easy to find the original thread on Google. It's actually still up as of right now, on Twitter.
Even if Mike Huckabee is lying about trying to submit ballots on behalf of his dead parents, he's still encouraging his followers to commit voter fraud like he pretended to do.
If he's not lying, he committed a felony. I doubt he'll be prosecuted for it, though, even if the ballots he submitted turned up as evidence.
Ehh, I get what people are saying about it, but I think this is a joke. A bad joke of course.
I don't think any of that is meant sincerely, it's instead a sarcastic "lol you can easily rig mail in ballots". What I mean is, his point isn't "I have done election fraud and you should too" but rather that you cannot trust mail in votes. It's still ugly rhetoric, of course.
"It's just a joke" these people say as they push the boundaries of what acceptable until they actually do it.
Just like Trump's only joking that he wants 12 more years. Everything's either joke or locker room talk or he didn't mean it that way.
It's not a joke, there's an angle there. He's encouraging people to commit voter fraud. He's intentionally undermining US elections.
Again, I think that's misunderstanding their agenda. And it's important to understand their agenda because it's dangerous. Huckabee's point, imo, is to undermine credibility in a certain category of votes. Because Republicans believe that those votes will heavily favor Democrats.
The point is to lay the groundwork for tossing out votes on election night and to create stricter standards to make voting more difficult in the future. I don't think the agenda at all is to normalize or encourage their own side to commit fraud. Throwing up hurdles to voting has long been part of the conservative agenda. As I said, it's still obscene rhetoric.
Protests, riots, and police violence would continue in Trump's America in a second Term just like his first term.
Protests to unpopular policy rejected by most Americans, and against racist corruption will continue.
Here's what he plans to do in. If President Trump wins re-election, he'll move to immediately fire FBI Director Christopher Wray and also expects to replace CIA Director Gina Haspel and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, two people who've discussed these officials' fates with the president tell Axios. Why? They didn't invent charges against Biden. Not loyal enough.
Additionally, Trump issued an executive order to lay the groundwork to fire thousands of federal employees.
The American Federation of Government Employees called the executive order the “most profound undermining of the civil service in our lifetimes,” describing it as an effort by the president to “politicize and corrupt the professional service".
So post re-election Trump plans to purge the government of people loyal to America and replace them with unqualified people loyal to Trump. He will continue corrupt the judiciary and put judges on the federal judiciary who are loyal to Trump not to America. Finally, he will continue to break and ignore the law but continue to employ state violence against his critics.
I guess I might visit here occasionally to preach my ideologies. If they are tolerated, that is. The opening post of the thread makes me hopeful... Given that this is a gaming community on one hand and a fantasy-RPG community on the other hand, I would guess that we have a fair mix of "SJW" and "anti-SJW" positions being represented around here? So I won't get banned for opinions alone, in either direction, so long as I communicate my thoughts in a clean way?
I'm in a really funny spot where I'd call myself a radical leftist (do watch if you have 20 minutes to spare), get called an SJW by some casual people who aren't deep into any politics, and at the same time have big parts of the liberal mainstream trying to compare my world-view to fascism. Sounds like a bundle of joy, doesn't it?
I work on the following project nowadays, when I feel like doing something productive outside of my full-time job:
Hasn't caught much traction yet, due to a variety of factors. The main factor probably being that the type of feminism represented therein primarily speaks to slightly older women who aren't necessarily technically savvy internet users who would easily get into wiki editing or have lots of free time on their hand to do it. Contrast that to teenager and university student types, who usually preach a very different interpretation of feminism. But yes, me being a man probably also factors into it.
As long as you follow the rules stated in the first post of this thread and the Site rules, you're alright.
Over the last few pages of this thread, the standards we strive to keep in this thread and on the forum overall, have dropped. This won't be tolerated and actions will follow. If you're unsure if you can post X or Y argument here, please open page #1 of the thread and re-read the rules first.
The sad thing about Mike Huckabee he made a pretty good Governor of Arkansas. For being a Baptist preacher he was moderate enough I voted for him for Governor his second term and in the primaries when he ran for president . Once he went to work for Fox News he and his family went off the deep end and never came backup.
As long as you follow the rules stated in the first post of this thread and the Site rules, you're alright.
Over the last few pages of this thread, the standards we strive to keep in this thread and on the forum overall, have dropped. This won't be tolerated and actions will follow. If you're unsure if you can post X or Y argument here, please open page #1 of the thread and re-read the rules first.
No worries, I wouldn't unironically call anyone an "SJW" as it's a pretty meaningless term. As far as I'm concerned it basically means "some vague collection of progressive(ish) positions on issues of social equality which some people dislike very much" and "anti-SJW" in turn would mean "the people who dislike those positions very much." No meaning to the terms beyond that to me, and I certainly fit into both.
That being said I wouldn't trust RationalWiki as a source on what is and isn't considered derogatory. For instance they normalize the use of the term "TERF" which as far as I'm concerned is as good as hate speech against a substantial portion of feminists, and as such I see RationalWiki as a fairly extremely misogynist website, at least in part.
Funnily enough, the RationalWiki page about "TERF" references the FeministWiki and tries to argue against it. I'll let everyone decide for themselves which of the two pages seem to contain more concrete evidence for their claims.
There's so many buzzwords people keep throwing around... My favorite new ones are "critical (race) theory" and "intersectional" which seem to have replaced "identity politics" and the all-famous "post-modernism" in recent times. Not to mention "neoliberal" which I don't hear much anymore. The debate-sphere would be vastly improved if we completely ditched such terms and all spoke to each other in easily understood terms IMO.
I guess I might visit here occasionally to preach my ideologies. If they are tolerated, that is. The opening post of the thread makes me hopeful... Given that this is a gaming community on one hand and a fantasy-RPG community on the other hand, I would guess that we have a fair mix of "SJW" and "anti-SJW" positions being represented around here? So I won't get banned for opinions alone, in either direction, so long as I communicate my thoughts in a clean way?
I dont think you need to worry about being banned for posting your views. So long as they conform to the rules of this thread (and forum), there shouldnt be any issue.
You may get quite a bit of pushback though. Plenty of people from all over the spectrum post here, and you're liable to find yourself disagreeing with one or more of them (Or them disagreeing with you).
Election law violation. Riiiight. Reporting on one of the biggest stories in my life time, but because it's bad for him - he doesnt like it. *Plays the world's smallest violin*
Edit - in Horserace news: The AJC just released a poll of Georgia, finding Biden up by .3 and (more importantly), Ossof up by 1 in the senate race. Both will *probably* still go GOP given Kemp's record on voter suppression, but that's pretty wild. I dont know if AJC has a house effect, but I'd be willing to bet they havent released too many polls in their recent history that had the GOP losing the state in a presidential election...
Why's Trump hate the first amendment? Right he wants his stories, which are lies, to be the only ones.
Just imagine if he gets his way and the press could not cover covid-19 outbreaks because his failure there hurts him politicially or something. What the hell right?
And the stupid thing on top of that is this didn't have to be politicial. He didn't have to decide that his approach would be to lie about the pandemic and get his followers to reject science. It never had to be this way. Any other leader and we'd be tackling this serious health problem realistically like every other country.
‘We have made tremendous progress with the China Virus’
Racist Lie.
‘But fake news refuses to talk about it this close to an election’
Wait, I thought his beef was that the media was talking about the virus? Maybe when he says fake news he is talking about OANN.
COVID... is being used by them, in total coordination, in order to change our great early election numbers.’
Ya, your election numbers were never good and in coordination with who? Their viewers and readers who clickbait the articles on COVID?
Should be an election law violation
Someone needs to explain to him that the constitution has more than the second amendment in it.
One week, please, let him be voted out so we don’t have to listen to this crap anymore.
@Taylan I wouldn't worry about getting in trouble for your political views here unless they are unusually heinous. We had a Marxist that participated a lot for awhile.
Oh and this thread is bigger than you think. This is the SECOND politics thread.
The word TERF is very familiar to me, and while I'd acknowledge it's generally used as a negative term, I wouldn't call it hate speech. Just because the group is deeply unpopular doesn't mean the name is a slur. After all, the words "Nazi" and "pedophile" are almost universally used as negative terms, and yet we do not deem those terms to be hate speech.
"Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is exactly what the word TERF refers to: a brand of feminism that excludes trans women from the definition of women. TERFs are very vocal about how they feel about trans women: they consider us a threat to both their sexual safety and the feminist cause, and they do not think we should be treated as women. This isn't me editorializing; that's how they describe their viewpoint.
Taking the timely example of J. K. Rowling, I don't use TERF to reduce her views to a stereotype or a caricature; I call her a TERF because she wrote a lengthy screed specifically calling people like me, my girlfriend, and half my friends "predators" (no, she didn't imply it; "predator" was the specific word she used) and has explicitly said she's opposed to trans women being allowed in women-only spaces. She promotes the same stereotypes and the same pseudo-intellectual hate as any other kind of transphobe.
When you explicitly justify excluding trans people on the grounds of your own specific brand of feminism, "trans exclusionary radical feminism" is very much the literal description of your worldview.
They call themselves "gender critical feminists" because adding the word "critical" makes them seem less like reactionaries and more like free-thinking dissenters. Thing is, they're not actually about taking a critical look at gender binaries; they are very big on accepting them. It's double-speak.
In fact, "gender critical" feminists often explicitly describe themselves as feminists who "defend" gender!
"Gender critical" is a conscious misrepresentation of their own views to make them seem less regressive. Old-school racists have been trying to rebrand themselves as "race realists" for the same reasons, and it's just as dishonest.
Comments
You have a mole hun, a patriot if you will.
I jest but I would suggest you click the flag button and allow a mod to correct my transgressions and I will see to it that I do not make those errors again in the future.
I will flag for the public scolding I just received from you.
More evidence accumulates for my original point.
I'm fairly certain an African Cardinal was among the heavy favorites in the last two Papal Conclaves. He just didn't get the votes either time. The current one being from South American makes sense, as Catholicism is immensely popular in those countries.
He can't, which is he isn't promising the moon. He also doesn't seem to believe in Medicare for All. A public option added to the ACA would be a very positive step, which is what they are on the record as pushing for. I doubt even this gets done, but at least it's on the table. I'll take this over Republicans lying to my face about it for four years, and continuing to insist they have a plan when they know full well they don't.
The responsibility for this falls more on congress than the presidency. Though obviously you need a Democratic president to not veto a bill. The question on whether this is viable or not will hinge on how the Senate elections shake out.
GOP deploying illegal "official ballot boxes" in california.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/12/california-illegal-ballot-boxes/
Trump voted illegally or is committing tax fraud in Florida.
Maralargo is taxed as a business meaning in Florida law that it cannot be a residence.
Bottom line:. Republicans want a perverted sense of "law and order" consisting of in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
We the people are in group two.
"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."
--David Frum, JAN 18, 2018
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/frum-trumpocracy/550685/
former speechwriter to George W. Bush
Here we are...
Even if Mike Huckabee is lying about trying to submit ballots on behalf of his dead parents, he's still encouraging his followers to commit voter fraud like he pretended to do.
If he's not lying, he committed a felony. I doubt he'll be prosecuted for it, though, even if the ballots he submitted turned up as evidence.
Ehh, I get what people are saying about it, but I think this is a joke. A bad joke of course.
I don't think any of that is meant sincerely, it's instead a sarcastic "lol you can easily rig mail in ballots". What I mean is, his point isn't "I have done election fraud and you should too" but rather that you cannot trust mail in votes. It's still ugly rhetoric, of course.
Huckabee's jokes are notoriously horrible, so I agree it's his usual lame attempt at humor. I'm more offended he raised his daughter to claim to be an upstanding Christian while lying to the country on a daily basis with no qualms for two years, and then pretend after she's been gone awhile that it never took place. This is the woman who was forced to ADMIT to Mueller that she lied to the press and the public, lest she perjure herself.
"It's just a joke" these people say as they push the boundaries of what acceptable until they actually do it.
Just like Trump's only joking that he wants 12 more years. Everything's either joke or locker room talk or he didn't mean it that way.
It's not a joke, there's an angle there. He's encouraging people to commit voter fraud. He's intentionally undermining US elections.
We don't really need Mike Huckabee's Twitter feed to spell out what Republicans think about voting rights. They've been more than happy to provide us an encyclopedia of evidence by their official actions for the last 15 years.
They are the party of suppressing the vote. The good news is, based on early numbers, they are failing despite all their efforts. And I do not see how Trump can win a high-turnout election. His entire strategy in 2016 was to bring both candidates into the mud to deflate turnout. It isn't happening this time. Certain parts of the country have already reached their 2016 vote totals 8 days out. Knock on wood, but this is far more likely to be an absolute blow-out than a result Trump can contest, much less win. If it's not, then the political polling industry will die on November 3rd.
I've been thinking about this for a few weeks now and have had many discussions at the dinner table, with friends and other family, colleagues and clients, even people waiting in line to grab a coffee. Most people have unanimously said one word that stuck out to me, fear. Not just of a trump win but even from a Biden win. Some bring up retaliation from the right and the excuse explained was that trump was not left to be President and do his duty with all the impeachment and russia stuff. Others said from the left not being upfront about packing the courts and Democrats will make Biden go on sick leave to make Harris President.
The overall emotion of America from what I see is fear, not optimism, hope or relief but fear. Fear will make you give up your rights or it can make you be much more alert about your surroundings. Being alert will make you understand that democracy is under attack and we must stand up and fight or curl up at home and sign anything that will make the bad men leave you alone. People are fuckin scared about both candidates right now and that can never be a good thing.
When state leaders are not respected by the majority something ugly and evil will pop up to fill that void. That thought gives me fear.
Again, I think that's misunderstanding their agenda. And it's important to understand their agenda because it's dangerous. Huckabee's point, imo, is to undermine credibility in a certain category of votes. Because Republicans believe that those votes will heavily favor Democrats.
The point is to lay the groundwork for tossing out votes on election night and to create stricter standards to make voting more difficult in the future. I don't think the agenda at all is to normalize or encourage their own side to commit fraud. Throwing up hurdles to voting has long been part of the conservative agenda. As I said, it's still obscene rhetoric.
Protests to unpopular policy rejected by most Americans, and against racist corruption will continue.
Here's what he plans to do in. If President Trump wins re-election, he'll move to immediately fire FBI Director Christopher Wray and also expects to replace CIA Director Gina Haspel and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, two people who've discussed these officials' fates with the president tell Axios. Why? They didn't invent charges against Biden. Not loyal enough.
https://www.axios.com/trump-firing-wray-haspel-esper-088cbd70-3524-4625-91f1-dbc985767c71.html
Additionally, Trump issued an executive order to lay the groundwork to fire thousands of federal employees.
The American Federation of Government Employees called the executive order the “most profound undermining of the civil service in our lifetimes,” describing it as an effort by the president to “politicize and corrupt the professional service".
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2020/10/new-executive-order-may-reclassify-wide-swaths-of-career-positions-as-political-appointees/
So post re-election Trump plans to purge the government of people loyal to America and replace them with unqualified people loyal to Trump. He will continue corrupt the judiciary and put judges on the federal judiciary who are loyal to Trump not to America. Finally, he will continue to break and ignore the law but continue to employ state violence against his critics.
And of course it generated 580 pages in 2 years!
I guess I might visit here occasionally to preach my ideologies. If they are tolerated, that is. The opening post of the thread makes me hopeful... Given that this is a gaming community on one hand and a fantasy-RPG community on the other hand, I would guess that we have a fair mix of "SJW" and "anti-SJW" positions being represented around here? So I won't get banned for opinions alone, in either direction, so long as I communicate my thoughts in a clean way?
I'm in a really funny spot where I'd call myself a radical leftist (do watch if you have 20 minutes to spare), get called an SJW by some casual people who aren't deep into any politics, and at the same time have big parts of the liberal mainstream trying to compare my world-view to fascism. Sounds like a bundle of joy, doesn't it?
I work on the following project nowadays, when I feel like doing something productive outside of my full-time job:
https://feministwiki.org/
Hasn't caught much traction yet, due to a variety of factors. The main factor probably being that the type of feminism represented therein primarily speaks to slightly older women who aren't necessarily technically savvy internet users who would easily get into wiki editing or have lots of free time on their hand to do it. Contrast that to teenager and university student types, who usually preach a very different interpretation of feminism. But yes, me being a man probably also factors into it.
As long as you follow the rules stated in the first post of this thread and the Site rules, you're alright.
Over the last few pages of this thread, the standards we strive to keep in this thread and on the forum overall, have dropped. This won't be tolerated and actions will follow. If you're unsure if you can post X or Y argument here, please open page #1 of the thread and re-read the rules first.
No worries, I wouldn't unironically call anyone an "SJW" as it's a pretty meaningless term. As far as I'm concerned it basically means "some vague collection of progressive(ish) positions on issues of social equality which some people dislike very much" and "anti-SJW" in turn would mean "the people who dislike those positions very much."
That being said I wouldn't trust RationalWiki as a source on what is and isn't considered derogatory. For instance they normalize the use of the term "TERF" which as far as I'm concerned is as good as hate speech against a substantial portion of feminists, and as such I see RationalWiki as a fairly extremely misogynist website, at least in part.
Funnily enough, the RationalWiki page about "TERF" references the FeministWiki and tries to argue against it. I'll let everyone decide for themselves which of the two pages seem to contain more concrete evidence for their claims.
There's so many buzzwords people keep throwing around... My favorite new ones are "critical (race) theory" and "intersectional" which seem to have replaced "identity politics" and the all-famous "post-modernism" in recent times. Not to mention "neoliberal" which I don't hear much anymore. The debate-sphere would be vastly improved if we completely ditched such terms and all spoke to each other in easily understood terms IMO.
I dont think you need to worry about being banned for posting your views. So long as they conform to the rules of this thread (and forum), there shouldnt be any issue.
You may get quite a bit of pushback though. Plenty of people from all over the spectrum post here, and you're liable to find yourself disagreeing with one or more of them (Or them disagreeing with you).
Election law violation. Riiiight. Reporting on one of the biggest stories in my life time, but because it's bad for him - he doesnt like it. *Plays the world's smallest violin*
Edit - in Horserace news: The AJC just released a poll of Georgia, finding Biden up by .3 and (more importantly), Ossof up by 1 in the senate race. Both will *probably* still go GOP given Kemp's record on voter suppression, but that's pretty wild. I dont know if AJC has a house effect, but I'd be willing to bet they havent released too many polls in their recent history that had the GOP losing the state in a presidential election...
Just imagine if he gets his way and the press could not cover covid-19 outbreaks because his failure there hurts him politicially or something. What the hell right?
And the stupid thing on top of that is this didn't have to be politicial. He didn't have to decide that his approach would be to lie about the pandemic and get his followers to reject science. It never had to be this way. Any other leader and we'd be tackling this serious health problem realistically like every other country.
Racist Lie.
‘But fake news refuses to talk about it this close to an election’
Wait, I thought his beef was that the media was talking about the virus? Maybe when he says fake news he is talking about OANN.
COVID... is being used by them, in total coordination, in order to change our great early election numbers.’
Ya, your election numbers were never good and in coordination with who? Their viewers and readers who clickbait the articles on COVID?
Should be an election law violation
Someone needs to explain to him that the constitution has more than the second amendment in it.
One week, please, let him be voted out so we don’t have to listen to this crap anymore.
Oh and this thread is bigger than you think. This is the SECOND politics thread.
"Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is exactly what the word TERF refers to: a brand of feminism that excludes trans women from the definition of women. TERFs are very vocal about how they feel about trans women: they consider us a threat to both their sexual safety and the feminist cause, and they do not think we should be treated as women. This isn't me editorializing; that's how they describe their viewpoint.
Taking the timely example of J. K. Rowling, I don't use TERF to reduce her views to a stereotype or a caricature; I call her a TERF because she wrote a lengthy screed specifically calling people like me, my girlfriend, and half my friends "predators" (no, she didn't imply it; "predator" was the specific word she used) and has explicitly said she's opposed to trans women being allowed in women-only spaces. She promotes the same stereotypes and the same pseudo-intellectual hate as any other kind of transphobe.
When you explicitly justify excluding trans people on the grounds of your own specific brand of feminism, "trans exclusionary radical feminism" is very much the literal description of your worldview.
They call themselves "gender critical feminists" because adding the word "critical" makes them seem less like reactionaries and more like free-thinking dissenters. Thing is, they're not actually about taking a critical look at gender binaries; they are very big on accepting them. It's double-speak.
In fact, "gender critical" feminists often explicitly describe themselves as feminists who "defend" gender!
"Gender critical" is a conscious misrepresentation of their own views to make them seem less regressive. Old-school racists have been trying to rebrand themselves as "race realists" for the same reasons, and it's just as dishonest.