Trump to become first president to speak at anti-LGBT hate group's summit

[StLucieBengal]

(10-19-2017, 02:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Ah, the "I have a black friend" defense.  "One time I appeared to be defending African populations!I can't be racist!"

If I post about carrots that does not make me a vegetarian.

If I say that I don't eat meat...that makes me a vegetarian.

If I say that I had a hamburger and it wasn't bad that doesn't mean I never said anything bad about eating meat.

Do you even read what you post lol.

When someone does wrong I call it out. When someone does right I call it out.

Not sure why you keep making this out to be about race.

[BmorePat87]

(10-19-2017, 02:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I guess I was anti Africans when I slammed Denmark for sending funds to African nations to specifically limit their populations so there would be less migrants?  

Or that time you said everyone from Africa was a "savage". I'm pretty sure that's what he is referring to. I'm pretty sure everyone here, yourself included, knows this.

[Belsnickel]

(10-19-2017, 02:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I personally do not care what those people do, I have advocated to resttict our borders. But I have also pushed to restrict borders from almost every country.

I guess I was anti Africans when I slammed Denmark for sending funds to African nations to specifically limit their populations so there would be less migrants?

But please keep up the narrative that I am somehow a racist lol. Can’t let the facts get in the way of your story.

Given your posting history with regards to all of this, your slamming of Denmark had less to do with the potential racial implications of the program than it did with your derision of one of your favorite buzzwords (eugenics) and the opportunity to shine a negative light on a country that is known for being more liberal than our own and other countries you like.

I could be wrong about you, and I hope I am, but my encounters with you have caused me to believe that you have little to no genuine compassion to the plight of people that are not cis straight able-bodied Christian white males. Again, I hope that my perception of you is wrong, but I am being 100% sincere when I say this is my impression of you based on your posts.

[GMDino]

(10-19-2017, 03:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Do you even read what you post lol.  

I see someone got a copy of the last meeting's minutes.

(10-19-2017, 03:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: When someone does wrong I call it out.   When someone does right I call it out.    

Not sure why you keep making this out to be about race.

Because in this instance we are talking about racists. Being intolerant of racist speech/hate speech is not the same as being intolerant of (fill in the blank) just because you disagree.

Disagreeing with those things is what should be done as decent human beings. But there is always an argument for the Nazis and racists around here.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-19-2017, 03:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Being intolerant of racist speech/hate speech is not the same as being intolerant of (fill in the blank) just because you disagree.

A few things:
1) Technically, they ARE the same thing. They are both forms of intolerance. But, I know what you're trying to say. They are not equivocally bad things.

2) (more like 1b) Like being prejudiced, being intolerant in some instances is actually okay. The problem is that many are so quick to judge and they stick to such a narrow viewpoint that when they show any form of intolerance (even to something most reasonable people would agree we shouldn't tolerate), they appear hypocritical.

3) The issue is that many people are quick to label issues or people they disagree with as racist or hate speech.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-19-2017, 03:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Or that time you said everyone from Africa was a "savage". I'm pretty sure that's what he is referring to. I'm pretty sure everyone here, yourself included, knows this.

No. I said if you are from a third world area where savage acts takes place then you live in an areas of savages. This was in context to my desire to restrict immigration worldwide. There is zero need to be bringing any more than we have to of people from these crazy regions.

Zero need for lawless third worlders to come here in anything but minimal numbers. Not when there are worthy lawful immigrants.

But hey let’s not allow the facts to get In the way of the savages narrative. According to you muppets I somehow have called only black people savages lol.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-19-2017, 03:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: I see someone got a copy of the last meeting's minutes.


Because in this instance we are talking about racists. Being intolerant of racist speech/hate speech is not the same as being intolerant of (fill in the blank) just because you disagree.

Disagreeing with those things is what should be done as decent human beings. But there is always an argument for the Nazis and racists around here.

At least have the guts to admit to what you have all been doing. You lot throw around -ist, -phobe, like it going out of style.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-19-2017, 04:25 PM)PhilHos Wrote: A few things:
1) Technically, they ARE the same thing. They are both forms of intolerance. But, I know what you're trying to say. They are not equivocally bad things.

2) (more like 1b) Like being prejudiced, being intolerant in some instances is actually okay. The problem is that many are so quick to judge and they stick to such a narrow viewpoint that when they show any form of intolerance (even to something most reasonable people would agree we shouldn't tolerate), they appear hypocritical.

3) The issue is that many people are quick to label issues or people they disagree with as racist or hate speech.

They refuse to acknowledge this at all. No matter how many times it’s brought up on this board. Too busy virtue signaling to each other. Like the shriekers from Tremors 2.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-19-2017, 03:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Given your posting history with regards to all of this, your slamming of Denmark had less to do with the potential racial implications of the program than it did with your derision of one of your favorite buzzwords (eugenics) and the opportunity to shine a negative light on a country that is known for being more liberal than our own and other countries you like.

I could be wrong about you, and I hope I am, but my encounters with you have caused me to believe that you have little to no genuine compassion to the plight of people that are not cis straight able-bodied Christian white males. Again, I hope that my perception of you is wrong, but I am being 100% sincere when I say this is my impression of you based on your posts.

1. So it’s about race because I do not think it’s proper for one sovereign nation to send money and supplies to another sovereign nation for direct purposes of population control of that nation. Why does Denmark get to ensure that there are lesss Africans on the planet so they can be eased by African migration. They don’t have to kill Africans to do so.... they can just pass a law to restrict immigration from the African nations.

It’s not right

2. As far as how you feel about me. You can feel or think whatever you prefer. Your opinion of me has zero importance in my life. If you wish to take some narrow opinion of me based off the fact that I refuse to play along with ridiculous PC language then so be it..... but also remember the opposite can also be true and I can think you are possibly just craven. I hope that my perception of you is wrong, but I am being 100% sincere when I say this is my impression of you based on your posts.

It’s probably safe to say in this case we are both full of it and probably shouldn’t make ridiculous assumptions about one another. Especially considering neither has made an attempt to reach out to the other.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-19-2017, 05:46 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 1. So it’s about race because I do not think it’s proper for one sovereign nation to send money and supplies to another sovereign nation for direct purposes of population control of that nation. Why does Denmark get to ensure that there are lesss Africans on the planet so they can be eased by African migration. They don’t have to kill Africans to do so.... they can just pass a law to restrict immigration from the African nations.

It’s not right

2. As far as how you feel about me. You can feel or think whatever you prefer. Your opinion of me has zero importance in my life. If you wish to take some narrow opinion of me based off the fact that I refuse to play along with ridiculous PC language then so be it..... but also remember the opposite can also be true and I can think you are possibly just craven. I hope that my perception of you is wrong, but I am being 100% sincere when I say this is my impression of you based on your posts.

It’s probably safe to say in this case we are both full of it and probably shouldn’t make ridiculous assumptions about one another. Especially considering neither has made an attempt to reach out to the other.

Yeah, it would be premature to form an opinion based upon a mere 11K+ posts between May 2015 through October 2017.

[GMDino]

(10-19-2017, 05:17 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: At least have the guts to admit to what you have all been doing.   You lot throw around -ist, -phobe, like it going out of style.

(10-18-2017, 01:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well when the thing they are not "accepting" is people who are racist and sexist it's silly to call the "left" intolerant.

But it could just be someone trying to take a road brush and say that the "left is intolerant" because some disagree with things on the right.  In which case there is some intolerance that should be tempered.  However not when talking about Nazis and the like.

(10-18-2017, 05:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm still not understand how being "intolerant" of hate speech is the same as being intolerant of people because of their racists/evil views.  Almost seems like a false equivalency yo hide a support for the racist/evil views.

(10-18-2017, 05:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: But that is what is being presented:  The "left" is intolerant because they speak out against people who are intolerant.  Which ignores the people being spoken out against are racist/evil.

That's not intolerance by the "left" in my book.  That is being decent human beings.

[GMDino]

So Spencer got to have his little show and try to get the crowd riled up against him.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/10/19/richard-spencer-shouted-down-university-florida-speech/781966001/

I haven't seem much about the violence at the speech (picture in the article) but I don't understand how Spencer can keep saying people don't want to have a conversation with him.  He says the same thing over and over.  No need to hear it again.

So he got shouted down a lot (ain't free speech grand?) and he looked the fool.

And I don't think he cried his eyes out this time.

Mission accomplished?

[*bfine32*]

The clique got what they wanted I see.

Very tolerant.

[GMDino]

(10-20-2017, 11:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The clique got what they wanted I see.

Very tolerant.

Is this about Spencer?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-20-2017, 11:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The clique got what they wanted I see.

Very tolerant.

State what you mean in plain English so when we discuss it you won't later claim you never said what you implied.

[Belsnickel]

(10-20-2017, 09:41 AM)GMDino Wrote: So Spencer got to have his little show and try to get the crowd riled up against him.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/10/19/richard-spencer-shouted-down-university-florida-speech/781966001/

I haven't seem much about the violence at the speech (picture in the article) but I don't understand how Spencer can keep saying people don't want to have a conversation with him.  He says the same thing over and over.  No need to hear it again.

So he got shouted down a lot (ain't free speech grand?) and he looked the fool.

And I don't think he cried his eyes out this time.

Mission accomplished?

He did his fair amount of shouting down when people were asking him questions, from what I understand.

[*bfine32*]

(10-20-2017, 11:15 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: State what you mean in plain English so when we discuss it you won't later claim you never said what you implied.

Tried that before and got a 4 month suspension.

You guys are great.

[GMDino]

(10-20-2017, 11:23 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: He did his fair amount of shouting down when people were asking him questions, from what I understand.

I only read the quotes in the story I linked.  He sounded swarmy.  I might have time to look at more over the weekend but it seems to have gone off with little fanfare, which is a good thing.

[*bfine32*]

(10-20-2017, 11:23 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: He did his fair amount of shouting down when people were asking him questions, from what I understand.

I'm all for free speech; however, I think what Spencer did in UF was uncalled for. The School made it clear they did not want him to speak; that should have been the end of it. Let them own their desire not to air all sides. But Spencer pushed the issue and the school conceded. I did find it humorous the Governor declared a state of emergency. He has a lot of faith in his citizenry I see.

[GMDino]

(10-20-2017, 11:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm all for free speech; however, I think what Spencer did in UF was uncalled for. The School made it clear they did not want him to speak; that should have been the end of it. Let them own their desire not to air all sides. But Spencer pushed the issue and the school conceded. I did find it humorous the Governor declared a state of emergency. He has a lot of faith in his citizenry I see.

The school as a policy of allowing anyone to rent the space.  So they let him speak.  

No one said anyone had to listen.

I'm assuming the Gov was afraid of clashes due to "both sides"™ going at each other.

Fortunately it seems little of that happened.  Although Spencer apparently told the people yelling they were antifa because the disagreed with him. Tolerant?