Jordan Peterson debate on the gender pay gap, campus protests and postmodernism

[antaeus]

I'm pretty sure most of the accusations towards "ameri-liberals" here, can easily be directed at anyone with strong political opinions. This means everything else here is pretty much fluff.

Lets take the fluff test and see if you can swap left for right and see if it still makes sense...

Now, I used to think that I were a conservative myself but seeing the positions taken by mainstream self-professed conservatives I have begun to question my designation as such.

What bothers me is that identity politics seem to have become the pivot around which a conservative's worldview and political stances are structured.
Even when confronted by very strong evidence, a self-professed conservative will not acknowledge being at fault, perhaps out of fear of being branded as "SJW", or at least not conservative enough.

The most significant (IMO) thing I took away from that interview is the assertion by "insert random thinker here" that the assumption that group identity is paramount is a commonality between conservative activists and right wing authoritarian regimes and can lead to all sorts of disasters.
It is my suspicion that therein lies to answer to the question why was that interview such a disaster for the interviewer: that in her attempt to defend her brand as a conservative she took positions that on one hand could not be defended and on the other she could not waver from.

Yep. Still makes sense. Which means it's a fluff piece.



As an aside....

"Now, I used to think that I were a liberal myself"

this feels a bit like a 'friend' argument to me. "Some of my friends are gay but..." "I have lots of black friends but...." "I used to be a liberal but..."

[athanaric]

I'm pretty sure most of the accusations towards "ameri-liberals" here, can easily be directed at anyone with strong political opinions. This means everything else here is pretty much fluff.

Lets take the fluff test and see if you can swap left for right and see if it still makes sense...

[...] Yep. Still makes sense. Which means it's a fluff piece.

It's a piece arguing against a totalitarian ideology, not just people with "strong political opinions". Of course that can be applied to "right wing" totalitarianism as well. That doesn't mean it's meaningless - au contraire. "Fluff piece" my arse.

As an aside....

"Now, I used to think that I were a liberal myself"

this feels a bit like a 'friend' argument to me. "Some of my friends are gay but..." "I have lots of black friends but...." "I used to be a liberal but..."

Well, apart from the fact that it's entirely different from the "friend" in content and meaning.
Otherwise, the latter would go like "I used to have black friends, but then I realized that they suck and I really hate ni----s".

[antaeus]

It's a piece arguing against a totalitarian ideology, not just people with "strong political opinions". Of course that can be applied to "right wing" totalitarianism as well. That doesn't mean it's meaningless - au contraire. "Fluff piece" my arse.

It's a fluff piece because it doesn't say anything that can be directed uniquely towards it's target. That's about as fluff as it gets. What's the purpose of an argument that can be levelled at any belief?

And what's the purpose of adding " I used to be a liberal but... " if not to leverage one's apparent reasonableness. Which is the entire point of a friend argument. "I have gay friends so my opinion is balanced when I say I don't like how gay people do something"

We are of course arguing opinion now... so each to their own...

[Sir Adrian]

That's because totalitarianism isn't unique to a certain political spectrum and ameri-liberalism has nothing unique to it. It's a rehash of Ceausescu era communist doctrine with a few words scratched out and replaced. I can listen to a lecture on women's studies or African studies or just feminism/"liberalism" in general, pull out my parents old school book on communist political theory and the collected speeches of leading communists and find the analogue. Sometimes they coincide word for word.

[paleologos]

According to Peterson the commonality between "victim's champions groups" and left wing totalitarians is not totalitarianism but the assumption that group identity trumps all else.
Perhaps he is not wrong about the existence of such a commonality.
Where he is wrong is in reducing Marxian critique of capitalist structures to group identity.

The concept that underlines Marxian political philosophy is not group identity, it is negotiating power and by extension power in general.
Marx asserts that since the structures-that-be control the means of production and consequently access to the output, they enjoy an overwhelming advantage in their negotiations with the working class and proposes the unification of the working class as a means to the end of countering the advantages of their "structural oppressors".
Ergo the necessity of group identity for the working class, according to Marxian theory.

In our day, SJWs (and I'm not using that pejoratively, though it occasionally warrants it) make the presumption that the differences in the outcomes in different social groups, as such differences are demonstrated in the demographic statistics, are evidence of structural oppression, disregarding the effect of free choice.
They go on to presume that "oppressed" groups share a common identity because "suffering together has a unifying effect".
Thus SJWs lead themselves on to believe that it is possible to speak for the "oppressed" as a group, even though an organization of the oppressed has not been formally structured and even without having been elected.
And that is the commonality between some SJWs and totalitarians that use Marxian pretexts.

However, Peterson is wrong by omission in another way as well.
Surely there is free choice and surely there is agency of the individual and surely it is overly presumptuous to take for granted that group identity is paramount.
We are free actors but our freedom is not unlimited.
Because we are actors on a scene that was staged by people who came before us.
And that includes people who pass on to their children their advantage of property (property is just another way to say power over stuff).
Whatever decisions we make, we make them within situations and conditions that we did not fully create ourselves and that is a fact.
We found ourselves in the midst of those situations and conditions without choosing them and that is a fact.
Whatever decisions we make, we make them in order to negotiate those situations and conditions and that is a fact.
And all those facts are going spectacularly amiss with the good professor, or so it seems.

A final point of disagreement I have with professor Peterson is that he takes for granted that "the left" want equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
He is doing that rather frequently.
Cathy Newman was extensively lambasted for her "so you are saying"s (and rightly so) but at least she got to do it to his face.
When Peterson presumes publicly and explicitly that equality of opportunity has been achieved and that "the left" are lobbying for equality of outcome and he does not go on to debate some really well spoken representative of the left like Bernie Sanders or Richard D. Wolff he is merely speaking in the echo chamber of his own worldview.

For the avoidance of misunderstandings I am not a marxist.
I believe that marxian analysis and critique of unbridled capitalism is correct.
I disagree with marxists on nearly everything else (and they are saying a lot of stuff about everything).

[Elfdude]

No one who is talking about Social justice is disregarding the effects of free choice. They're pointing out the sampling bias which has lead to disparate outcomes. This is not the entire effect but it's a large and measurable effect. No one presumes oppressed groups suffer for the same reason, the philosophy is solidarity in oppression to keep from infighting which serves to diminish and invalidate the movement. The gap between men and women in the US is relatively narrow, the gap between black and white is enormous, american native and non-native is enormous, the gap between disabled and abled is enormous, the gap between transgendered and virtually anything else is enormous so on and so forth. This is especially in areas where there's no plausible alternative explanation. Don't get me wrong the answer is often much deeper and more involved than simply "skin color" but often that reduces to historical inequities which have carried through into future generations and those inequities often have the effect of reinforcing differentiation already in place, i.e. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Because most of society revolves around capital and money, anything which biases money in turn has dramatic effects on polarization in society. As a scientist I must control for these effects by the nature of my research, sampling bias must be controlled for or the result over long time is the ends drifting further and further from the mean.

[Kritias]

You're all raising very interesting points.

I think the problem with Jordan Peterson that isn't being addressed so far is that he himself is following an ideology, same as the people he condemns. There's an interesting article by Žižek that you can find here, wherein he argues that Jordan Peterson, as the unofficial (and most possibly unwanted by Peterson himself) spokesperson for the functionalist approach, promotes arguments of the functionalist school. Now, problem #1 is that Peterson himself is a psychologist by training and so a lot of the arguments he puts forward are very rudimentary in terms of economics and sociology. His strong suit is when he argues psychology and of course his most impactful arguments are from a field he spent decades researching. I don't mean that in any bad way, Peterson is more well-red than the vast majority of people we see entering the public debate nowadays.

The problem is that functionalism, as every form of ideology, is a grand theory: it offers solutions and explanations for everything. It's basic premise is a and b equals c. Every time. Of course, the equations are never so simple. Take for example the multi-variate analysis Peterson himself argues for the alleged wage gap. No matter how many variables you take into account though, the idea of such grand theories is that the outcome is always the same. What's more, the basic premise of functionalism is that society as a whole operates with a sense of concensus, disregarding completely the power struggle between various groups.

Arguably, this is a very basic understanding of human experience. Take for example another issue Jordan Peterson talks about: the IQ and its significance for the job market. From empirical observation, there's a point towards high-end jobs. No one can possibly deny that the really high-end jobs require significant IQ. But how about the rest of the jobs? The idea that people get seperated according to how smart they are doesn't hold under empirical scrutiny. Are you willing to say that all factory workers around the globe, every single one of them, have an IQ of around or under a 100? If you do, let me introduce you to Harry Braverman, a worker in the metal industry of England. Who also wrote a very influencial analysis of industrial sociology, his 1974 book titled Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. This study still holds even after lots of debate. Not bad for a worker with arguably an IQ around or under a 100.

Add to that, the effects of economic cycles were you find all kinds of people doing all kinds of jobs to survive. In times of crisis, or economic cycles, the functionalist school claims that a lot of problems arising in occupation and unemployment comes down to the fact that the job market get increasingly smaller and the competition gets harsher. Problem is, there's no unified job market, there are distinct job markets. Sociology, namely the Weberians and the Chicago School of thought, has shown since the 30's that people from different classes find employment in different ways. The social context matters in what type of employment you'll end up having. Though the functionalists claim that everybody is running in the same lane, there are actually multiple lanes where people compete over for employment. W.E.B DuBois, for example, has shown, in his seminal work here, how different people from different social classes and racial backgrounds move about to find employment. It's important that he noted how, par example, the domestic worker in the city of Philadelphia in 1897 [year of study], wasn't only a woman or even black woman; she was a black Creole woman. Around a hundred other studies have verified DuBois' points since then.

Example. When I was in Amsterdam I found a woman of 34, a certified lawyer, who was working in the flower market. Now if you are from the Netherlands you can guess what kinds of people work in the flower market. The functionalists would say that this disparity is a) a matter of choice, b) structural unemployment that will go away in a few months to a few years, c) bad information regarding to job opportunities or d) non-economic parameters such as IQ and personality. I can tell you that a) she didn't choose it since she was going to job interviews several times a month and had contacted a lot of agencies to find employment in her field, b) the Netherlands had an economic strain but not at the point where high-end diplomas couldn't land you a mediocre position, c) she was checking employment sites hourly and sending her CV all the time, and d) she had to be quite clever to finish law school in the Netherlands, plus she had a CV spanning a few pages with extra specialization. So, what was the problem? A) debt to finish her degree and master degree, and b) she wasn't Dutch and as such had a harder time to find employment through her social networks.

Let's take another example of the functionalist approach [here]. Pay attention during 2:48 - 3:35. Here you can see the unadultered functionalist argument basically. Now, take your own personal experience into account. Every job you've ever taken and every wage you get is how high [or low] you value your time as you embark on a trade with your employer. Think about that. Now, let's take the example of Germany and its mini-jobs. There must either be a lot of Germans who value their time under 450 euros a month, or there must be a lot of people who couldn't find employment elsewhere and had to resort to these jobs. What sounds more likely?

The whole argumentation Peterson deploys is just the functionalist approach where you as a person, including things out of your control really, such as personality and IQ, are the only responsible for your fate. It sounds true, I guess, but as Žižek points out, its a truth that hides a lie.

[Pontifex Maximus]

If you haven't seen the interview here is a link, I suggest you watch it.
If you are liberal, you may find it educational, in most other cases you will find it entertaining and very satisfactory.

Now, I used to think that I were a liberal myself but seeing the positions taken by mainstream self-professed liberals I have begun to question my designation as such.
What bothers me is that identity politics seem to have become the pivot around which a liberal's worldview and political stances are structured.
Even when confronted by very strong evidence, a self-professed liberal will not acknowledge being at fault, perhaps out of fear of being branded as "alt-right", or at least not liberal enough.

The most significant (IMO) thing I took away from that interview is the assertion by Professor Peterson that the assumption that group identity is paramount is a commonality between social justice activists and left wing authoritarian regimes and can lead to all sorts of disasters.
It is my suspicion that therein lies to answer to the question why was that interview such a disaster for the interviewer: that in her attempt to defend her brand as a liberal she took positions that on one hand could not be defended and on the other she could not waver from.

What do you think?

A few years ago I would be in your same boots with regards to ideological confusion. Peterson's arguments are spectacular of course and his interviewer is clearly intellectually unarmed. Peterson points out the Left's agenda with regards to identity politics, and in my opinion that is the soft underbelly of the liberal agenda at its heart. Identity politics is cancer. Reducing every possible policy concern to tribe think not only robs the individual of the intellectual agency to form his own opinion, but it forces those who have drunk deeply from the Kool-aid into an ideological corner. I see it in my LGBT friends on a daily basis, to the point that I have been basically ostracized for my conservative views. So much for the tolerant left. Identity politics is cancer and robs the individual of free choice based upon membership in a particular ideological group. The fact that the left must then fabricate stats and facts in order to keep this coalition of disparate identities combined and voting for leftists further undermines their viability. Fortunately they are usually able to deceive their base into voting for them along these lines, because after all, 100% of conservatives are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, sexist, everythingphobic privileged white males.

[Elfdude]

Fortunately they are usually able to deceive their base into voting for them along these lines, because after all, 100% of conservatives are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, sexist, everythingphobic privileged white males.

The thing you miss is liberals think 100% of everyone are racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. because society truly was built to be that way for literally the last forever and only cared about not being so in like the last 50 years. Conservatives just get angry when they don't understand the mentality of fixing something which isn't anyone's fault but everyone is guilty of because they feel personally blamed.

Case in point you.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I'm a gay, half-Arab, lower middle class raised person who is an atheist living in the bible belt who rose above his station to achieve a high level of education and success.. Case in what? Identity politics takes another crucial blow. Society is absolutely not structured the way you contend it is.

if you don't believe me, you can ask my boyfriend.

I've just revealed waaaay more personal information about myself than I ever wanted to on TWC, but it was worth it if nothing else to disprove you.

The simple fact is that conservative values transcend your regressive identity politics because those values are better for everyone, regardless of race, class, or religion. That's why these icons like Adam Rippon are nothing more than part of the regressive left and the overall problem. Not shaking hands with Pence? Nice. Way to gain headlines to further ostracize the gay community from mainstream America. Well done. At least Tom Daley was hot.

[Elfdude]

*snip*

I genuinely feel sorry for you because somehow you got the message that you should fit in. Somehow you got the message that your struggle was normal. Somehow you got the message that when people claim you're subhuman you should vote for them. Instead you've found an echo chamber, closed yourself off from your peers and refused to understand the struggle of folks like yourself. You're not a hole in my argument, you're an outlier and at some point you've got to intellectually comprehend the reason why. Is it because you reject identity politics? I doubt that. You didn't disprove anything. I said literally everyone was racist and everyone was sexist. Gay arab men are still part of that everyone in case you missed it. Perhaps you don't feel personally blamed but it sounds like the alternative is that you're simply callous to the pain of others. I'm not sure which is actually worse.

Values don't derive their meaning by whether they're a part of the right or left. While I would say many times the left has better values than the right that is a statement of current condition not a statement of absolute connection. Your values with regards to economics are backwards. It doesn't take an expert to understand that. Your social values are utterly incoherent. There's not a single laudable conservative value you possess which I do not also value. The problem is you're not intellectually honest enough, nor emotionally available enough to care. You went through the flames and instead of coming out you somehow learned to withstand them and presumed everyone else should join you in the fire. That's... tragic.

edit: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Séverus Sñape again.

I do also feel conflicted that you've felt it necessary to hide your identity on an online forum. My heart breaks for you. We love you and affirm your right to be who you are. I still hate your politics.

[Pontifex Maximus]

I genuinely feel sorry for you because somehow you got the message that you should fit in. Somehow you got the message that your struggle was normal. Somehow you got the message that when people claim you're subhuman you should vote for them. Instead you've found an echo chamber, closed yourself off from your peers and refused to understand the struggle of folks like yourself. You're not a hole in my argument, you're an outlier and at some point you've got to intellectually comprehend the reason why. Is it because you reject identity politics? I doubt that. You didn't disprove anything. I said literally everyone was racist and everyone was sexist. Gay arab men are still part of that everyone in case you missed it. Perhaps you don't feel personally blamed but it sounds like the alternative is that you're simply callous to the pain of others. I'm not sure which is actually worse.

I've never once been profiled by any of my friends on the right, only by my friends on the left, as you've reaffirmed here. You seem to think my preferences for non-political things should define my political leanings. Ironically (for you, not for me) the left profiles me when I disagree with them for no other reason than some irrelevant personal traits. Most Arabs (muslims) would sooner execute me than recognize my right to ...live. And you're surprised I'm a conservative? My grandfather fled that exact scenario in the middle east not very long ago. I'm a proud successor to that same mentality - thank goodness for the freedom the USa provides us all to live the lifestyles we live.

Values don't derive their meaning by whether they're a part of the right or left. While I would say many times the left has better values than the right that is a statement of current condition not a statement of absolute connection. Your values with regards to economics are backwards.

My values with regards to economics are the government should allow me to keep as much of my own money as possible while providing for national defense, for which I willingly pay my fair share. Trump and the Republican administration have thus far done a very good job of this. I could use a little more relaxation in the Obamacare catastrophe though.

It doesn't take an expert to understand that. Your social values are utterly incoherent. There's not a single laudable conservative value you possess which I do not also value. The problem is you're not intellectually honest enough, nor emotionally available enough to care. You went through the flames and instead of coming out you somehow learned to withstand them and presumed everyone else should join you in the fire. That's... tragic.

Oh dear, a paternalistic non gay telling me what I should and should not believe, with no personal experiences whatsoever or facts to back that up? And please cite Pence, please, I beg of you. I have the benefit of a very good education, I can defend my stance on this all day from a legal and policy standpoint. It also helps that I'm not easily offended.

My social values are very consistent. I don't care if your a Republican or a democrat: Leave me the alone.

edit: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Séverus Sñape again.

I do also feel conflicted that you've felt it necessary to hide your identity on an online forum. My heart breaks for you. We love you and affirm your right to be who you are. I still hate your politics.

I hide my identity as much as the next person on an online forum. Little of my sexual identity defines me as a person. I also love to cook and lift weights and brew beer. All of that is way more relevant on an online forum than who I prefer to date. I've not really hidden it on this forum, I'm the group leader of an LGBT group and after all, nobody really asked me anyway. Though all said, I don't get the big deal.

[Elfdude]

I've never once been profiled by any of my friends on the right, only by my friends on the left, as you've reaffirmed here. You seem to think my preferences for non-political things should define my political leanings. Ironically (for you, not for me) the left profiles me when I disagree with them for no other reason than some irrelevant personal traits. Most Arabs (muslims) would sooner execute me than recognize my right to ...live. And you're surprised I'm a conservative? My grandfather fled that exact scenario in the middle east not very long ago. I'm a proud successor to that same mentality - thank goodness for the freedom the USa provides us all to live the lifestyles we live.

You've never been profiled? That's silly. Everyone profiles everyone else. Most don't recognize that they do that. I do not deny that most theocracies would kill you for being homosexual. I detest all religion including islam. I don't detest it more than christianity but just as much. I appreciate freedom and liberty and maximization of that attribute I feel is laudable so long as your freedom does not infringe upon mine. As I said, there's not a single laudable value you hold I don't share.

My values with regards to economics are the government should allow me to keep as much of my own money as possible while providing for national defense, for which I willingly pay my fair share. Trump and the Republican administration have thus far done a very good job of this. I could use a little more relaxation in the Obamacare catastrophe though.

The hilarious thing here is that they shifted the burden to you and people like you. Their view is not that you should keep as much money as possible, their view is that if they give you a buck or two back you'll ignore them giving themselves millions back. Apparently you fell for it hook line and sinker, on the other hand real progressive tax structures benefit literally everyone except the top 1%. There's not an argument here it's simply that you're ignorant enough to believe that your low taxes depend upon the rich not being taxed at all.

Oh dear, a paternalistic non gay telling me what I should and should not believe, with no personal experiences whatsoever or facts to back that up?

I've made it clear before that I'm pansexual, but do go on about my lack of experience.

My social values are very consistent. I don't care if your a Republican or a democrat: Leave me the alone.

What have liberals done which hasn't left you alone? Made sure that you weren't a valid target to fire just because your orientation was discovered?

I hide my identity as much as the next person on an online forum. Little of my sexual identity defines me as a person. I also love to cook and lift weights and brew beer. All of that is way more relevant on an online forum than who I prefer to date. I've not really hidden it on this forum, I'm the group leader of an LGBT group and after all, nobody really asked me anyway. Though all said, I don't get the big deal.

*shrug*

[Sir Adrian]

The thing you miss is liberals think 100% of everyone are racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. because society truly was built to be that way for literally the last forever

No it wasn't.

[fkizz]

I'm a gay, half-Arab, lower middle class raised person who is an atheist living in the bible belt who rose above his station to achieve a high level of education and success.. Case in what? Identity politics takes another crucial blow. Society is absolutely not structured the way you contend it is.

I guess you should downgrade your career as to avoid offending the leftists and SJWs.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

more seriously though, their group think seems to encourage solipsism in real time

[Pontifex Maximus]

You've never been profiled? That's silly. Everyone profiles everyone else. Most don't recognize that they do that. I do not deny that most theocracies would kill you for being homosexual. I detest all religion including islam. I don't detest it more than christianity but just as much. I appreciate freedom and liberty and maximization of that attribute I feel is laudable so long as your freedom does not infringe upon mine. As I said, there's not a single laudable value you hold I don't share.

Well maybe you profile everyone, but I can assure you not everyone does that.

The hilarious thing here is that they shifted the burden to you and people like you. Their view is not that you should keep as much money as possible, their view is that if they give you a buck or two back you'll ignore them giving themselves millions back. Apparently you fell for it hook line and sinker, on the other hand real progressive tax structures benefit literally everyone except the top 1%. There's not an argument here it's simply that you're ignorant enough to believe that your low taxes depend upon the rich not being taxed at all.

I'd argue you don't understand how taxes and tax breaks work. Most middle class families are very glad to have their "crumbs" as Nancy Pelosi so condescendingly put it back in their own pockets. And I don't care if there's less money to throw around in welfare programs all the way around, I think the government should be forced to sweat a little bit about finding the money it needs for all its programs without resorting to additional taxes. I'm a small government guy. I'm not going to complain when my taxes go down and whine like an angry younger sibling that my otherr brother got something I didn't/

I've made it clear before that I'm pansexual, but do go on about my lack of experience.

I'll rephrase: Oh dear, a paternalistic LGBT+ person telling me what I should and should not believe, with no personal experiences whatsoever or facts to back that up other than some tribal identity?

Your dating pool is potentially 100% of the population and mine is ~2.5% at best. Our experiences aren't very alike.

What have liberals done which hasn't left you alone? Made sure that you weren't a valid target to fire just because your orientation was discovered?

1. Told me how I had to get healthcare and punished me if I didn't follow the rules
2. Constant agitation to take away my ability to own a gun
3. Used my tax dollars to fund an organization I find morally reprehensible

I guess you should downgrade your career as to avoid offending the leftists and SJWs.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

more seriously though, their group think seems to encourage solipsism in real time

They'll have to strip my license from my cold dead hands before I do that

It's either straight people being paternalistic or other gay people calling you an uncle tom. There's no way to win

[Elfdude]

Well maybe you profile everyone, but I can assure you not everyone does that.

Harhar. That's right, you only profile leftists, feminists, sjws, liberals, muslims, and latinx. I forgot that totally doesn't count.

I'd argue you don't understand how taxes and tax breaks work. Most middle class families are very glad to have their "crumbs" as Nancy Pelosi so condescendingly put it back in their own pockets. And I don't care if there's less money to throw around in welfare programs all the way around, I think the government should be forced to sweat a little bit about finding the money it needs for all its programs without resorting to additional taxes. I'm a small government guy. I'm not going to complain when my taxes go down and whine like an angry younger sibling that my otherr brother got something I didn't

Which is to say, you're willing to pay higher taxes so that the rich don't have to.

I'll rephrase: Oh dear, a paternalistic LGBT+ person telling me what I should and should not believe, with no personal experiences whatsoever or facts to back that up other than some tribal identity?

lol.

Your dating pool is potentially 100% of the population and mine is ~2.5% at best. Our experiences aren't very alike.

Wait, you realize the issue in what you just said right? Talk about assumptions. Mr. I don't profile!

1. Told me how I had to get healthcare and punished me if I didn't follow the rules

<plays world's smallest violin>

So you could care less that you can't be fired for your sexual orientation but you're angry about $695. You know the sunset on the Trump tax cuts will have you paying more than this right?

2. Constant agitation to take away my ability to own a gun

No Liberal has tried to take away your gun. Hyperbole is a argument.

3. Used my tax dollars to fund an organization I find morally reprehensible

Such as?

[The spartan]

No it wasn't.

Of course it was, though not purposefully. Humans are naturally racist/homophobic/(insert whatever prejudice here), it's how we deal with our innate desires for tribalism. Think about all the relics of such structures that still exist as law around the world. Arabia still has a lot of problems with prejudice structures in their cultures/governments. The US only recently recognized gay marriage as being legal. We literally had a legal block on marriage based on societal norms derived for religion. No one person (usually) decides that society should be that way, it just arises from human nature.

[Sir Adrian]

If things were as you say then every society everywhere would have displayed at one point or another the exact same traits, yet we have clear examples pointing to the opposite - such as the roman empire which did not care what your skin color or orientation was as long as you payed your dues and did not cause trouble.
Saudi intolerance is generated top to bottom, not because such behavior in inherent to human society. Basically the ruling family believes that the ideas of an 18th century wacko are law and the people follow suit. This is further demonstrated tby the fact that just next door to Saudi Arabia you have two Arab countries which practice a lot of tolerance (Kuwait and Jordan)
In fact if you look at world history most of the intolerance was generated top to bottom. Christian Iberians had lived peacefully along-side Jews for centuries until the Spanish crown decided they were non-people. The conquistadors moved to the Americas to get rich, not because they particularly hated the natives. The Atlantic slave trade existed because African chieftains sold their own people and European monarchs said it was good and legal, not because Europeans hated black people.


Besides, if your argument if correct then all the isms are inherent and a key element of society since Adam and Eve. By combating them you are in fact combating biology and that can lead to only 2 outcomes from where I stand: you lose and everything you are combating is reinforced, or you succeed to unravel society as a whole.

The US only recently recognized gay marriage as being legal. We literally had a legal block on marriage based on societal norms derived for religion. No one person (usually) decides that society should be that way, it just arises from human nature.

And if you hadn't insisted on calling it marriage, but rather called it for what it was - a civil union - you would have gotten it decades earlier. 99.99% of people who oppose gay marriage and gay rights don't actually hate gay people. They do so because of what happens at gay pride parades and because you are asking them to step on long held values without providing any coherent argument as to why they should do that.

[Elfdude]

This just in, romans weren't racist because their racism revolved around different qualifiers besides colorism. Completely invalidating 21st century politics. Tune in next time to hear concession speech of the DNC.

Also, racism is biologically inevitable thus our ability to understand its deleterious effects intellectually demands no action. Also blacks are to blame for slavery and catholics are to blame for anti-semitism.

Finally, how dare people take pride in their lifestyles and try to marry the person they love.