KKK and Nazi's support of Trump is sickening.

Post Reply New Topic

Looking back at a message from Sweetleaf that I missed, I would like to say first that I did not misunderstand your opinion as it was presented to us, you just seem to be changing it. First you condemn trumps actions. Then you say that it has nothing to do with his words or actions specifically, but rather your problem is that he seems to have accidently said some things that an unrelated group of people agree with and he needs to change his words and actions to try and prevent their agreement. THEN you go back to saying that your issue is NOT this other group, but instead your problem is back to being trump. Now I can never truly know your opinion, there will forever be a gap between how well you state it and how well I interpret your statement. But from where I read, it seems that the gap is primarily on your side of that gap.

On the issue of "traditional family values", I think I might have first made the mistake of using that term over my original term of "traditional family dynamics" which is to simply suggest that the man holds a primary position of power. I know that the first phrase holds a lot of demonization due to the way in which that particular phrase has been used by the right. That being said, I was simply stating the KKK's beliefs as I understand them, no trumps. It isn't trumps fault that he is a man, nor should he be sorry for it or care that the KKK places value in that fact. The 2nd thing is that even though he should probably be an independent, he is running as a Republican. So even if he DID have "traditional family values" that would be well within the expectations for a Republican, agree with them or not. And my opinion on that particular matter has no baring on our discussion.

No I think his inflamatory us vs. them language is problematic whether or not he intends it to be, as it could give encouragement to his supporters that are nazis or kkk that has been my opinion the entire time, sorry you can't comprehend that.

That's totally beside the point. White supremacist groups didn't support the other GOP candidates the same way as Trump, even though they all believe approximately the same thing with regard to families. They like Trump because he's rabidly anti-immigrant, racist against Mexicans, and bigoted against Muslims.

The educational system did its job well, you are now able to repeat information that has been fed to you with a high degree of accuracy. Never mind the truth behind it, or lack there of.

In regards to Sweetleaf, I wrote a probably too large response and It was deleted by mistake so ill just sum it up. The idea that leadership directly translates into status is incorrect. To the Spartans, the only two types of people who were allowed the honor of having their names engraved on their tombstones were men who died in battle, and woman who died during child birth. Woman have always been more valuable than men, because they are the bottleneck of our species ability to reproduce. They were not prevented from leading because they were not worthy, the men simply stood in front because they would catch the first arrow for doing so, and their lives mattered less. But this thread isn't about gender dynamics so that is the last thing that I will say about it.

P.S. I am primarily a stay at home father of 3. My wife works more than I do and makes more than I do. I will be quitting the work I currently have to pursue a career in writing, which means that once again I will be getting supported by my wife. That being the case, I am still the authoritative one in our relationship, because I believe that some one needs to have the ability to have the final say during disagreements, even if that person often elects not to do so. Now I am just one example, but I have seen relationships more equality based fail countless times while my wife and I have gone strong for 8 years. And I never advocate the forcing of beliefs on people, quite the opposite. But look at 3rd wave feminism and tell me who is forcing what on whom. Or better yet, don't tell me since I will no longer discuss the issue on this thread.

What's your wife, like, on a scale of 1 to 10?

7, If I had to guess. I've never thought about it. I would probably be a 4 though. And aspies aren't very well known for their personal hygene either, so my beard and hair that I tend to let grow out pretty long before entirely shaving off don't help me much.

When it comes to personal relationships it's barely got to do anything with feminism... if you're simply too authoritarian she'd leave you, unless you're also abusive and it's Stockholm syndrome etc... so, your choice as to whether you have a healthy relationship or ones based on ideology.

Don't take my word for it then. Just look at the Amish, they take it even more traditionalist and they're thriving more than any of us. And when society collapses because of race wars and feminism, we'll ironically all turn to them to teach us all the basics again. Of course in the process we'll probably have to re-accept religion and all of our progress would be lost, all because we're unable to accept the reality of our biological differences. Just a thought.

Btw its a feminist fallacy that no woman are submissive. Men should be secure in their masculinity, and woman should be secure in their femininity. Beyond that, people should do whatever makes them happy, without pretending that other people should conform to their opinions, or conforming to the opinions of other people.

Crap I said I wouldn't talk more about gender dynamics on this thread. Time to go make my own!

MRA historical revisionism never ceases to amuse me.

A great many things is ridicilous about it. They're in other countries, but they use the same rhetoric as they do in America. They whine about slavery and historic oppression in a country that made slavery illegal in the 1300s, and where black people more or less didn't even live until the 1960s, when they moved here of their own volition. One of the earliest black men in Sweden was given to the Swedish royal family by Denmark. He was brought up as a sibling to the royal children, given education and titles, married (twice), was made a freemason, performed ballet, assembled a respectable personal library and eventually died aged 75. This in a time where ordinary swedes were basically slaves themselves.

In Britain, they've dug up something like 5 black people who have died from police intervention since 2011, and somehow this is incontrovertible evidence that England, a country where the police isn't even armed except under special circumstances, the same country that allowed the Rotherham rape gangs to go on unhindered by police for 16 years rather than even risk being seen as racist, is a country that has a problem with systemic violence against black/brown people?

Colour me mildly skeptical.




I'd agree, except I've seen people use him as a source/ referred to him as some sort of thought leader, and that scares me a bit.


Pehaps you'd prefer the official list of demands issued by BLM, which can be summed up as "people who aren't you did bad things to people who aren't us in the past, so give us free money, free education, free healthcare and lots of political power.

Some gems include: Forgiveness of all student loans for black students. A guaranteed basic income for all black adults AND coverage of all costs of living for black students. A removal of Assata Shakur (convicted murderer and domestic terrorist) from the FBI Most Wanted List. The release of all black people currently in prison for crimes related to drugs and prostitution. The end of all deportations and basically making all illegal immigrants citizens effective immediately.

In principle, I'd actually be for some of their demands (others are just absurd), but they seem intent on giving things to blacks that would never be extended to whites. I'd say that warrants the label "racist".

OK, the UK didn't have slaves more recently than America so there's no racism there.

There were actually a few African slaves in the UK during the Slave Trade Era.

A feminist who speaks of other people revising history to better suit their views. Now I've seen everything. JK, I've seen hypocrisy before.

Feel free to adress other things I didn't say, whilst ignoring the things I did say.

If there's racism, then BLM is relevant. In America, they can address the government here, in the UK, they direct their message toward it. I know that's super complicated to grasp.

Except if they try to adress the UK government or the Swedish government using the exact same issues that they accuse the US goverment of, then it falls flat. Police shootings are rare in Sweden, and pretty much always make the news when they occour. In the UK, Some of the deaths of black people seem to have been cases of mentally ill people being handled poorly (which is tragic), but even if we assume that all the deaths mentioned by BLM are entirely unjustified (not likely, considering some of the names that made the list in the US), deaths from police violence has plummeted since the early 2000s, and even then only numbered in the low hundreds. Any preventable and/or unjustified death is a tragedy, but trying this hard to craft a racial narrative from this data just reeks of agenda pushing and disingenuousness.

I'm inclined to believe that there's a problem of twitchy over-eagerness to use violence in the US police. This may be an issue of their training, it may be an issue of where said police is operating (areas with more violent crime breed twitchier police officers) or it may be any number of other things. What has not been established is that this is down to racism, nor does it follow that BLM's demands become relevant should that be the case. That's like saying that the existence of black criminals make lynch mobs relevant.

And would you care to explain to me how stopping the hunt for an escaped murderer is going to alleviate racism?