Commie terrorists BTFO. Bakery awarded $11 million after being targeted by student activist protests

[Gaidin]

I’m trying to figure out what you would sue universities for. What’d any single one do to you? Much less all of them.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

They produce femnazis, which don't want to marry straight white Lonely ones.

[The spartan]

They produce femnazis, which don't want to marry straight white Lonely ones.

You joke, but it is like flashbacks to the 60s and 70s where the political right would just constantly try to discredit Universities by claiming they were literally indoctrinating students to be Communists.

[Basil II the B.S]

The irony here is that the ones that actually end up alone in their 40s are.... feminists who thought ''marriage is patriarchal''. Then again, who's dumb enough to marry a feminist? Let them become spinsters. They hate men anyway. Good riddance.

I’m trying to figure out what you would sue universities for. What’d any single one do to you? Much less all of them.

Any university that teaches or embraces ''social justice'' causes is actively working to destroy society and rebuild it according to an extremist ideology that historically has a 0% success rate.

Thus, they are a threat to society and prosperity. They must be destroyed.

[Gaidin]

That vague theory gives you zero grounds to sue.

[The spartan]

The irony here is that the ones that actually end up alone in their 40s are.... feminists who thought ''marriage is patriarchal''. Then again, who's dumb enough to marry a feminist? Let them become spinsters. They hate men anyway. Good riddance.

As according to your feelings or do have something that greatly supports your interpretation? Marriage rates are down, but it would dishonest to say it is because the sexes hate each other, it is more that individualism is more highly prized today than in the past, where it would be really weird to be in your late 20s unmarried. I have never seen anything to indicate that feminists cause their SOs to be miserable in relationships. If you have research pointing to that I would be interested to read it.

[Basil II the B.S]

The thread is about a bakery that was harassed by SJWs.

[Gaidin]

The thread is about a bakery that was harassed by SJWs.

You turned it to you wanting to sue all universities out of a budget despite not having a cause and also being wrong.

Stop opening doors.

You also don’t talk about the entire bakery case. Just the small part that suits you making you sound amazingly half-read and naive.

[Basil II the B.S]

Point me where I said where I want to sue ''ALL'' universities.

Oh wait I never said that. But you took one from this book:


Point 4.

Too easy to hack through the pieces of your argument so long that it repeats the same pattern.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

As according to your feelings or do have something that greatly supports your interpretation? Marriage rates are down, but it would dishonest to say it is because the sexes hate each other, it is more that individualism is more highly prized today than in the past, where it would be really weird to be in your late 20s unmarried. I have never seen anything to indicate that feminists cause their SOs to be miserable in relationships. If you have research pointing to that I would be interested to read it.

In fact it has less to do with patriarchy as in many countries young men are till their late thirties mamma's boy.

Italy for example:

More important perhaps, is the cultural significance of the family. It began as an interpretation of the Roman Catholic faith. Now it is an integral part of Italian culture. This sense of family underpins the concept of mafia itself - and it is present throughout society. As a result it is entirely acceptable to remain within the family until one's 30s or even 40s.

Anyone doing so will inevitably spend more time with their mother. Far more than in the UK, Italian mothers tend to stay at home while their husbands go out to work. The average son spends around 15 minutes a day with his father. By contrast he spends hours and hours with his mother. So he learns to take his every cue from her, while she learns to be in control of his every thought or movement. She decides what he wears, whom he sees and what he eats. That is why Italian men speak to their mothers so often even after leaving home.

They are often unable to make a decision without her input.
This can be incredibly frustrating for the female partners of these modern Peter Pans. Even before they meet, the man has a blueprint of his wife-to-be imprinted on his soul: in most cases she will have to look like his mother, be able to cook as well as her and ultimately be a replacement mother for him.

As soon as they get engaged, the competition between future mother-in-law and fiancee begins. She puts too many onions in the tomato sauce; she doesn't iron his shirts properly; she just isn't good enough. Throughout their married life it isn't her he turns to for advice, but his mother. It only ends when the couple have a child of their own. Then the grandmother relinquishes her role - effectively passing it on to her daughter-in-law so that the cycle starts all over again.

This may all sound rather amusing, but it can have serious consequences. A study by the European Institute of Psychoanalysis analysed the careers of men from a range of European countries. It found that in Italy, the continuous control exerted by mothers over their sons actually damaged their career propsects. These men depended so much on their mother's judgment that they found it hard to cope in the outside world.
A large proportion of Italian couples were also found to have problems caused by interference of his mother in the relationship. In Italy it is said to be the cause of relationship breakdowns in 36% of cases, compared with 25% in Germany and 18% in France.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/14/gender.uk

[♔The Black Knight♔]

That's an appeal to rationality which doesn't really find truthfullness in reality. Why? Let's look at the profile of your SJW activist: rich and white. These people benefit immensely from the current system, primarily due to inherited wealth, yet actively promote radical social change that, should it happen, would see them as losers. So there's no real rational argument in favour of it. It's entirely moral. The public flagellation of whiteness allows rich white liberals to claim the moral superiority of the oppressed while at the same time being the oppressors. It's Orwellian. It's not even a real matter of elevating the poor, it's a matter of looking good.

This is overwhelmingly evident when looking at the despair of the big metropolitan conglomerates dominated by rich white liberals. San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York... all the same. There's them and there's the racially diverse ultra poor underclass fighting homelessness, rampant crime, a variety of occasional diseases that the Western world hadn't seen in decades and so on.

The only advantage that the right has over this is indeed homogeneity. The social justice crowd faces constant frictions between feminists and transgender, lgbts and Muslims, Asians and blacks etc. Right wingers in a sense have it easier. As the values of the modern world actually fail to make people happier, what worked until now becomes appealing. Traditional family and a society based on ethnic and religious belonging ensures stability and long term social prosperity. They also get to claim ''I told you so'', which is why in an open conflict they are more likely to prevail. Put it in context of the decline of the Western world middle class and the above mentioned division of society in rich liberals and the rest, and the room for conflict is there.

Who says it has to be rational? You brought up the example of communism, and it was pretty clear that the ideology (which is not favorable to elites) didn't come to fruition as imagined while the Soviet Union evolved. It was used as a front to obtain power. Same thing for any extreme nationalist, extreme leftist, whoever. They usually don't implement their ideology to the fullest, but rather, they implement just enough to keep the people from turning on them (and things that are going to empower themselves anyways) while they focus on solidify their power (taking out political enemies etc...). This is just human power politics in conflict to push and pull for control.

Anyways, you are ultimately supporting my argument. Right wing ideology in the age of nationalism is more appealing than any extremist left wing ideology. It appeals to what is perceived to have "worked" in the past (which makes sense because widespread social change is unpredictable). What is believed to have "worked" in the past, however, is different from person to person, culture to culture (as if these things are coherent concrete things), and different strands of right wing ideology. It's just something that some elites appeal to to maintain control in face of radical change or challenges to their authority.

Think about it. You say that ethnicity and religious belonging ensures stability and long term social prosperity. Which countries in the world are truly homogeneous and religiously united, which haven't had internal conflicts in the past. Japan might be the closest thing that you can point to, yet it was racked with internal strife and civil wars for centuries before the Tokugawa Shogunate established relative peace. Even then, the Meiji revolution and the Boshin war ended that. How long could we say Japan has been stable and prosperous for... 70 years at most?

Ethnicity isn't even a concrete enough object that you can define. Are Turkish Cypriots Turks? Cypriots? Greeks? Are they a different ethnicity than Greek Cypriots (DNA analysis shows that they are indistinguishable, yet the two groups clearly distinguish themselves from each other and are in conflict)? What about the concept of ethnicity itself? Is it subjective, or is there an ethnic "essence" that we can identify to objectively label people as? I would say the same thing about religion, but that is going to require a thread to discuss on its own.

What promotes long term(however you would like to define it) stability is a social system that balances power dynamics of human beings the best. We should make a thread in the political academy if we want to discuss this further.

[Gaidin]

Point me where I said where I want to sue ''ALL'' universities.

Hmmm...yea.

No. Nassim Taleb, who happens to be one of my favourite authors, commented on it on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1137428041104318464

Noteworthy to mention he advocates for the same belligerent approach I do. Sue the out of universities and bankurpt every single one of them.

EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. THEM.

[The spartan]

Idk Gaidin, I don't see the word "ALL" there. I think he got you.

[Gaidin]

Idk Gaidin, I don't see the word "ALL" there. I think he got you.

If synonyms are useless then moderators can moderate.

[Cyclops]

Point me where I said where I want to sue ''ALL'' universities.

Oh wait I never said that. But you took one from this book:


Point 4.

Too easy to hack through the pieces of your argument so long that it repeats the same pattern.

Point 1-3: "Commie terrorists"
Point 4-6: "sue all universities"
I can't be bothered reading through all your guff but it looks suspiciously like you're following the book yourself.

I have to say the US seen real terrorism many times and this is no a example. OP is an asinine bit of bulldust not worthy of serious discussion, and is disrespectful of victims of terror like those at the WTC.

[Basil II the B.S]

Hmmm...yea.


EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. THEM.

Logical analysis, first grade.

I didn't say sue EVERY (or ALL) universities and bankrupt every single one of them.

I said sue universities (open ended, meaning those who promote SJW crap since it's this context) and bankrupt every single one of them. Indeed I reiterate. Sue universities that promote SJW mob crap should sued into bankruptcy.


Let's test you guys: can you measure the differences between:
-everyone is a liar
-everyone always lies

Or alternatively, since you guys are claiming it: Why on earth would I want to bankrupt universities that do not promote social justice rubbish?

Point 1-3: "Commie terrorists"
Point 4-6: "sue all universities"
I can't be bothered reading through all your guff but it looks suspiciously like you're following the book yourself.

I have to say the US seen real terrorism many times and this is no a example. OP is an asinine bit of bulldust not worthy of serious discussion, and is disrespectful of victims of terror like those at the WTC.

You don't think SJWs are extremists?

Who says it has to be rational? You brought up the example of communism, and it was pretty clear that the ideology (which is not favorable to elites) didn't come to fruition as imagined while the Soviet Union evolved. It was used as a front to obtain power. Same thing for any extreme nationalist, extreme leftist, whoever. They usually don't implement their ideology to the fullest, but rather, they implement just enough to keep the people from turning on them (and things that are going to empower themselves anyways) while they focus on solidify their power (taking out political enemies etc...). This is just human power politics in conflict to push and pull for control.

Anyways, you are ultimately supporting my argument. Right wing ideology in the age of nationalism is more appealing than any extremist left wing ideology. It appeals to what is perceived to have "worked" in the past (which makes sense because widespread social change is unpredictable). What is believed to have "worked" in the past, however, is different from person to person, culture to culture (as if these things are coherent concrete things), and different strands of right wing ideology. It's just something that some elites appeal to to maintain control in face of radical change or challenges to their authority.

Think about it. You say that ethnicity and religious belonging ensures stability and long term social prosperity. Which countries in the world are truly homogeneous and religiously united, which haven't had internal conflicts in the past. Japan might be the closest thing that you can point to, yet it was racked with internal strife and civil wars for centuries before the Tokugawa Shogunate established relative peace. Even then, the Meiji revolution and the Boshin war ended that. How long could we say Japan has been stable and prosperous for... 70 years at most?

Ethnicity isn't even a concrete enough object that you can define. Are Turkish Cypriots Turks? Cypriots? Greeks? Are they a different ethnicity than Greek Cypriots (DNA analysis shows that they are indistinguishable, yet the two groups clearly distinguish themselves from each other and are in conflict)? What about the concept of ethnicity itself? Is it subjective, or is there an ethnic "essence" that we can identify to objectively label people as? I would say the same thing about religion, but that is going to require a thread to discuss on its own.

What promotes long term(however you would like to define it) stability is a social system that balances power dynamics of human beings the best. We should make a thread in the political academy if we want to discuss this further.

Ideological purity is generally abandoned after the takeover because people start dying in hundreds of thousands for not fitting perfectly into the ideas behind the utopian societies.
And right wing nationalism prevails simply because tribalism relying on homogeinity trumps the one relying on diversity. The coalition of diverse tribes eventually implodes.

Japan is an interesting case. Indeed, it has endless internal wars, however once it was ''unified'' under the Tokugawa Shogunate, internal strife ended for the most part. Why? Because divisions between clans could be assimilated into the next level of tribalism, which is the nation. Just like families can be assimilated into clans. The real trouble starts when you have to assimilate nations into supra-national unions. Those are generaly empires and they eventually implode due to separatism.

As for Turkish Cypriots, in theory they aren't even Turks, since modern Turks are mostly not from central Asia, but they are local Anatolians. However they are ''Turkish'' in the sense they belong to the Turkish nation and that's why Cyprus struggles. Two different nationalities with radically different values, backed aggressively by their main nations. So you have ethnicity that in a sense overlaps the concept of nation (Turkish/Greek) and at the same time tries not to (Turkish/Greek inserted into the new nation Cyprus). Both would indeed be better off simply by being together with their ethno-nationality.

The topic is nonetheless interesting, especially compared to the rest of comments I'm getting, so if you want to make a thread, I'm all for it.

[Gaidin]

Finesse your words all you want. We know what you said. It’s on record.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

Logical analysis, first grade.

I didn't say sue EVERY (or ALL) universities and bankrupt every single one of them.

I said sue universities (open ended, meaning those who promote SJW crap since it's this context) and bankrupt every single one of them. Indeed I reiterate. Sue universities that promote SJW mob crap should sued into bankruptcy.


Let's test you guys: can you measure the differences between:
-everyone is a liar
-everyone always lies

Or alternatively, since you guys are claiming it: Why on earth would I want to bankrupt universities that do not promote social justice rubbish?



You don't think SJWs are extremists?


Ideological purity is generally abandoned after the takeover because people start dying in hundreds of thousands for not fitting perfectly into the ideas behind the utopian societies.
And right wing nationalism prevails simply because tribalism relying on homogeinity trumps the one relying on diversity. The coalition of diverse tribes eventually implodes.

Japan is an interesting case. Indeed, it has endless internal wars, however once it was ''unified'' under the Tokugawa Shogunate, internal strife ended for the most part. Why? Because divisions between clans could be assimilated into the next level of tribalism, which is the nation. Just like families can be assimilated into clans. The real trouble starts when you have to assimilate nations into supra-national unions. Those are generaly empires and they eventually implode due to separatism.

As for Turkish Cypriots, in theory they aren't even Turks, since modern Turks are mostly not from central Asia, but they are local Anatolians. However they are ''Turkish'' in the sense they belong to the Turkish nation and that's why Cyprus struggles. Two different nationalities with radically different values, backed aggressively by their main nations. So you have ethnicity that in a sense overlaps the concept of nation (Turkish/Greek) and at the same time tries not to (Turkish/Greek inserted into the new nation Cyprus). Both would indeed be better off simply by being together with their ethno-nationality.

The topic is nonetheless interesting, especially compared to the rest of comments I'm getting, so if you want to make a thread, I'm all for it.

Well I think we should start with understanding what a nation actually is. I've been conducting research on nationalism, so when I create a new thread I'll present what I know there.

[Basil II the B.S]

Well I think we should start with understanding what a nation actually is. I've been conducting research on nationalism, so when I create a new thread I'll present what I know there.

Looking forward to that.

Finesse your words all you want. We know what you said. It’s on record.

No no no. Don't think you'll get away with this.
Answer:
-Why on earth would I want to bankrupt universities that do not promote social justice ideology?

Let's add another one:
-Why on earth would I sue for libel universities that do not commit it? To lose?

You tried to misrepresent my claim, so let's go with your alleged intepretation.

Cyclops and Spartan are also required to answer the above questions.

[TheLeft]

Basil, if people are suddenly 'required' to answer questions, then why are you ducking my questions from earlier? Namely:

So how does it make them Commies? Are all protesters communist? Or just the ones you don't like?