The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[alhoon]

https://www.economist.com/internatio...gziF09l-rlYbtY

It was about time!

[Grimbold]

https://www.economist.com/internatio...gziF09l-rlYbtY

It was about time!

Blocked by pay wall.

The available text though, makes an interesting point.

Coincidentally I was just talking about the case of Laurel Hubbard, New Zealand's trans woman weightlifter that's going to the Olympics. As we know, for some (trans) activists, stating the objective fact that trans individuals like Hubbard have an unmistakable advantage over biological women is tantamount to transphobia.

However, per the article's first paragraph, it appears to be transphobic to suggest that trans women should be jailed with women too, or did I misinterpret it?

Edit: Maybe it's a pay wall thing and it's explained later on, but the accusation of transphobia doesn't make sense and is in fact contradictory if the debate's author position is "Yes, trans women should be placed in female prisons".

[alhoon]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/progressi...154409501.html

MWAHAHAHHAAAAAAA!!!
Somehow, progressives tend to forget that Latino and black people don't want pink-haired gender-confused white weirdos telling their kids that gender is a social construct. The progressive agenda is taking a hit. And that's not just in USA. All around the west, normal, sane people are being progressively disgusted (pun intended) with progressive politicians and the crap they espouse.
We can tolerate the university weirdo that shouts bullcrap. But when politicians start to take that weirdo seriously and (like it happens in England) silence sane opposition, they will start losing votes. The weirdo that shouts bullcrap in the uni is not the problem. Serious decisionmakers pandering to the weirdo are the problem.

[The spartan]

You understand how you undermine your own posts by repeatedly using words like "weirdo", right?

[alhoon]

You understand how you undermine your own posts by repeatedly using words like "weirdo", right?

For 90% of the Western world, the ones tired by SJW bullcrap to the point that a fifth of them turn to far-right parties in part or completely in order to spite the annoying SJWs, repeatedly using words like "weirdo" to describe weirdos does not undermine my posts. On the contrary, saying that we shouldn't use certain words to avoid offending a vicious toxic minority* that very often does not really align with the people they supposedly defend as my link and the data therein prove, underlines why such posts are needed. I don't mean you, I know you mean well. But there are a bunch of pandering idiots that are elected representatives that now act surprised that their conservative minority voters don't buy their bullcrap. We are at a point in the western world that we invent things to be angry about because the remaining problems we have, so far have expensive and unpopular solutions that would hit our quality of life.

So, what would the slacktivist that is bored and wants to spite his parents do? He would of course dye his hair pink, put a bunch of earrings and piercings and starts espousing random crap and take a useless degree in a scam-versity that pretends things like Gender studies is a viable career path.


*That works on the other side of the coin too, as many of the far-right weirdos and bible-thumbers are not really defending the values they pretend to care about. But that's for the other thread and for some reason the people Pence, Johnson, Bolsolano the FR weirdos pander to, have not started to wake up yet.

[swabian]

Ugh, sorry, brain fart. Delete please.

[The spartan]

For 90% of the Western world, the ones tired by SJW bullcrap to the point that a fifth of them turn to far-right parties in part or completely in order to spite the annoying SJWs, repeatedly using words like "weirdo" to describe weirdos does not undermine my posts.

So, I am just trying to point out that your repeated use of the term "weirdo" makes your post sound less convincing as it comes off as a vacuous platitude. Imagine if, in the Conservative rant thread, someone made a post complaining about Trump supporters and repeatedly used the word "evil" to describe Trump and his supporters in their post. You would probably see that that comes off as the poster having a huge, biased chip on their shoulder and that their complaint seems more based in emotion than anything substantive. Your idea of what counts as "weird" means very little. You could think certain people's taste in music or movies are "weird", you could think certain people's choice of fashion is "weird", or you could think certain religious practices or beliefs are "weird"; it just doesn't do much other than express your personal displeasure with something when you repeat it like that. If the basis of your complaint is that you personally don't like it, especially with a false claim that "90% of the western world" agrees with your assessment, it makes your complaint seem oddly specific and weak. It comes off like an older person complaining that kids these days listen to horrible music or something; you are going to get people rolling their eyes in response thinking "ok, boomer".

[Cope]

So, I am just trying to point out that your repeated use of the term "weirdo" makes your post sound less convincing as it comes off as a vacuous platitude. Imagine if, in the Conservative rant thread, someone made a post complaining about Trump supporters and repeatedly used the word "evil" to describe Trump and his supporters in their post.

It isn't necessary to imagine abusive language being directed at Trump supporters; the howls of "cultist", "racist" and "fascist" are particularly familiar.

You would probably see that that comes off as the poster having a huge, biased chip on their shoulder and that their complaint seems more based in emotion than anything substantive. Your idea of what counts as "weird" means very little. You could think certain people's taste in music or movies are "weird", you could think certain people's choice of fashion is "weird", or you could think certain religious practices or beliefs are "weird"; it just doesn't do much other than express your personal displeasure with something when you repeat it like that. If the basis of your complaint is that you personally don't like it, especially with a false claim that "90% of the western world" agrees with your assessment, it makes your complaint seem oddly specific and weak. It comes off like an older person complaining that kids these days listen to horrible music or something; you are going to get people rolling their eyes in response thinking "ok, boomer".

People should be proud to have a "huge biased chip on their shoulder" against radical ideologues, language police and cultural vandals.

[The spartan]

It isn't necessary to imagine abusive language being directed at Trump supporters; the howls of "cultist", "racist" and "fascist" are particularly familiar.

And you find such rhetoric to detract from their points, don't you? Thanks for backing me up.

People should be proud to have a "huge biased chip on their shoulder" against radical ideologues, language police and cultural vandals.

And I am sure the people who call Trump supporters racist fascists would agree with you. You just think that the partisan bias is justified in one direction and not the other (ie partisan hackery).

[Cope]

And you find such rhetoric to detract from their points, don't you? Thanks for backing me up.

I find that the invective is being criticized to distract from the substance.

And I am sure the people who call Trump supporters racist fascists would agree with you. You just think that the partisan bias is justified in one direction and not the other (ie partisan hackery).

The tu quoque response is, as ever, both predictable and unconvincing.

Feel free to explain why opposing police cuts is "partisan hackery" at a time when violent crime rates are spiraling out of control, particularly in far-left strongholds like Portland. Better yet, explain it to the largely Democrat voters of NYC who've just rejected that sort of radicalism to elect (in all likelihood) a salt of the earth, former police captain as mayor.

[Infidel144]

I find that the invective is being criticized to distract from the substance.

And ignores that this is a rant thread.

The tu quoque response is, as ever, both predictable and unconvincing.

Hey, at least he is consistent, you can think back to all the times he has whinged to his comrades about their use of invective.
Oh, wait...

[The spartan]

I find that the invective is being criticized to distract from the substance.

It's funny because you don't even disagree with me on the use of buzzwords, you are just playing a game. You probably don't even agree with Alhoon that 'gender' and 'sex' are interchangeable terms.

The tu quoque response is, as ever, both predictable and unconvincing.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Feel free to explain why opposing police cuts is "partisan hackery" at a time when violent crime rates are spiraling out of control, particularly in far-left strongholds like Portland.

Wtf are you even talking about? Partisan hackery is when you think dishonest tactics are cool when they help you but condemnable when your opponents use it. If you think your cause is righteous enough to justify dishonest tactics, you are a partisan hack. Really simple as that.

Better yet, explain it to the largely Democrat voters of NYC who've just rejected that sort of radicalism to elect (in all likelihood) a salt of the earth, former police captain as mayor.

Sure, just answer to some random demand you have that had nothing to do with what I or Alhoon were talking about. I'll get right on that.

And ignores that this is a rant thread.

I never ignored any such thing, I am trying to point out to Alhoon how he is undercutting his own points through poor use of rhetoric. The type of rhetoric that both you and Cope would agree is poor.

Hey, at least he is consistent, you can think back to all the times he has whinged to his comrades about their use of invective.
Oh, wait...

Yes, I am famously Leftist after all. How did you know?

[Cope]

It's funny because you don't even disagree with me on the use of buzzwords, you are just playing a game. You probably don't even agree with Alhoon that 'gender' and 'sex' are interchangeable terms.

"Weirdo" isn't a buzzword; it's a mild taunt.

Wtf are you even talking about? Partisan hackery is when you think dishonest tactics are cool when they help you but condemnable when your opponents use it. If you think your cause is righteous enough to justify dishonest tactics, you are a partisan hack. Really simple as that.

Sure, just answer to some random demand you have that had nothing to do with what I or Alhoon were talking about. I'll get right on that.

I'm referring to the article cited in post #1443 which discusses hostility among non-whites to the progressive agenda on policing. There is nothing "dishonest" or "partisan" about ridiculing acolytes of the successor ideology who argue in favour of police cuts while minimizing the surge of violent crime.

[The spartan]

"Weirdo" isn't a buzzword; it's a mild taunt.

Oddly specific, but I guess anything to not have to admit you agree with me, right?

I'm referring to the article cited in post #1443 which discusses hostility among non-whites to the progressive agenda on policing. There is nothing "dishonest" or "partisan" about ridiculing acolytes of the successor ideology who argue in favour of police cuts while minimizing the surge of violent crime.

It isn't necessary to imagine abusive language being directed at Trump supporters; the howls of "cultist", "racist" and "fascist" are particularly familiar.

You make it too easy.

EDIT: I suppose I should add, since I know you will complain, but the most recent crime stats I can find go up to 2019 and show a pretty, uh, fine trend?


If I am not mistaken the "Progressive Agenda" (hey, a buzzword!) is about reducing funding to the police and using that funding for ancillary services such as mental health and social services. I know people love to get up in arms about violent crime rates and show year-to-year comparisons of a city that had 12 murders one year and 24 the next (omg, a 100% increase!@!@#!$) as if that represents some kind of new trend, but don't you think we should have some actual, comprehensive data on this kind of stuff before a brick?

[Cope]

Oddly specific, but I guess anything to not have to admit you agree with me, right?

There's nothing "oddly specific" about recognizing that the term "weirdo" is by no means fashionable jargon (i.e. a "buzzword").

You make it too easy.

Only if one inexplicably assumes that criticizing or mocking radicals is tantamount to "partisan hackery" or abuse.

EDIT: I suppose I should add, since I know you will complain, but the most recent crime stats I can find go up to 2019 and show a pretty, uh, fine trend?

If I am not mistaken the "Progressive Agenda" (hey, a buzzword!) is about reducing funding to the police and using that funding for ancillary services such as mental health and social services. I know people love to get up in arms about violent crime rates and show year-to-year comparisons of a city that had 12 murders one year and 24 the next (omg, a 100% increase!@!@#!$) as if that represents some kind of new trend, but don't you think we should have some actual, comprehensive data on this kind of stuff before a brick?

The Pew data ends in 2019. The uptick in violent crime (particularly homicide) I was referring to coincided with last year's unrest and liberal/leftist calls to cut police funding/services. This was discussed extensively in the George Floyd thread.

[PointOfViewGun]

Connecting calls for defunding the police, which is usually not what people argue against think it is, with homicide rates is a quite stupid (for the lack of a better word) thing to do. It's a laughable attempt with no intelligent thought in it whatsoever.

[Gromovnik]

Comrade Floyd bashes the fash from beyond the grave. That's pretty impressive.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Defunding police doesn’t mean reallocating departmental resources to hire more social workers and fewer beat cops. It literally means defunding police departments to fund other priorities.

We know that police don’t keep us safe — and as long as we continue to pump money into our corrupt criminal justice system at the expense of housing, health, and education investments — we will never be truly safe.
That’s why we are calling to #DefundPolice and #InvestInCommunities

https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-de...-really-means/

However, the implications of this premise don’t match up with reality.



Scenes at #Defund protests have been even more explicit.

"Go home Jacob!" dozens of demonstrators chanted at Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, forcing him to leave a Saturday afternoon protest over police brutality and the death of George Floyd.

"Shame! Shame!" the crowd continued as video shows Frey leaving the vicinity.

This reaction came after organizers gave a microphone to the mayor, who told demonstrators that he'd been coming to grips with his "own brokenness" and acknowledged a need for structural reform.

"In terms of how the [police] department operates, the racist system needs to be revamped," he said.

Then, video shows a protest organizer take the microphone and say, "We have a yes or no question for you. Yes or no, will you commit to defunding the Minneapolis Police Department?"

Before answering, Frey asked the woman, "abolition of it?"

The woman answered, "one in the same."

After some back and forth, Frey answered that he does "not support the full abolition of the police," leading to the crowd's calls for Frey to go home.

https://abc11.com/minneapolis-mayor-...police/6236009

While there is broad public support for police reform, that is specifically not what is meant by the defund mantra, as explained by BLM above. The public knows what it means, and is opposed to the idea.

[PointOfViewGun]

What a lovely farce. We all know what it is. Just because a few people use the word "abolish" in the heat of a protest doesn't mean they want to get rid of the police all together. However, its normal for a group of people who needs to deal with police brutality on a daily basis would want that. It's as intelligent as arguing that when people say "Go home Yankees!" they want people from north of USA to go to their literal homes...

It means to divest from militarization of the police force and use that money to fund programs and professions that contribute to the safety of the community much more. It's a result of the trend that LBJ started with increasing police department budgets continuously.

[Lord Thesaurian]

What a lovely farce. We all know what it is. Just because a few people use the word "abolish" in the heat of a protest doesn't mean they want to get rid of the police all together. However, its normal for a group of people who needs to deal with police brutality on a daily basis would want that. It's as intelligent as arguing that when people say "Go home Yankees!" they want people from north of USA to go to their literal homes...

It means to divest from militarization of the police force and use that money to fund programs and professions that contribute to the safety of the community much more. It's a result of the trend that LBJ started with increasing police department budgets continuously.

This kind of dishonest, furious cope is indicative of the untenable political position the Democrats have found themselves in, as they quietly try to distance themselves from their own rhetoric, and even deflect it onto their opponents. The gaslighting has gotten so brazen that the White House Press Secretary openly trolled Republicans, asserting that Democrats are actually trying to increase police funding, and it’s Republicans, by virtue of opposing trillion dollar spending packages, who are trying to defund police.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki stood by claims made by President Joe Biden adviser Cedric Richmond that Republicans defunded America’s police departments.
"'Republicans defunded the police,'" Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy quoted Richmond as saying in a question to Psaki, "'by not supporting the American Rescue Plan.' But how is that an argument to be made when the president never mentioned needing money for police to stop a crime wave when he was selling the American Rescue Plan?"

https://news.yahoo.com/psaki-stands-...201000791.html

It’s no wonder Democrats are trying to pull off a 180 on their own talking points, given the facts on the ground.

One year after the movement to “defund” law enforcement began to upend municipal budgets, many American cities are restoring money to their police departments or proposing to spend more.

In the nation’s 20 largest local law-enforcement agencies, city and county leaders want funding increases for nine of the 12 departments where next year’s budgets already have been proposed. The increases range from 1% to nearly 6%.

Many U.S. cities are led by Democrats who supported protesters’ calls to defund the police—a term that activists have used in different ways, including to push for simply shrinking the size of police forces but also shifting resources from law enforcement to social services. The demonstrations, led by Black Lives Matter and allied groups, followed the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer last year.

But city officials have found it difficult to keep police budgets down after seeing a rise in crime over the past year, with murder rates up by double digits in many cities. In the last three months of 2020, homicides rose 32.2% in cities with a population of at least one million, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Quarterly Uniform Crime Report. Law-enforcement officials and criminologists say pandemic stress and a police pullback amid protests are likely contributors.

“It’s hard to have a serious conversation with folks about cutting a police department’s budget when crime is up,” said Michael Nutter, the former mayor of Philadelphia and a Democrat.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cities-...me-11622066307

The Democrats have abandoned their own pet activists, who’ve insisted police funding be cut, not reallocated toward reform efforts, and instead have moved to increase funding under the auspices of police reform. It’s a matter of political necessity.