Hypocrisy of The Left - part 2

[Benny78]

I read this article today.

How can you even.. possibly... relate it to white males? Apathetic, white, males... a blood-sucking minority?

It absolutely boggles the mind that some can believe that people are people... except those people over there, of course.
And, yeah. I'm talking about you. I sincerely hope you're a troll and I've completely missed your point.

On a side note - "sort've" is not an accepted abbreviation for sort of.

I didn't I related it to gay people.

White males aren't capable of causing this situation. Think about this logically. If the situation was reversed and the pornstar instead said she would only work with gay men and not straight men (warning her other co workers the guy was a "straight arrow" and not a "cross over". You can't honestly sit there and say straight pr0n groups would publicly try to destroy her? And even if they did would the pressure of society/moral outrage really be there to have an effect?

At the end of the day all this bullshit has pressured a 23 year old woman into taking her life.

 

[strung_out7]

Another life taken by blood sucking minorities http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...t/news-story/02f6071201d946c52c18372401a4239b.

These things are apathetic creatures who think destroying other people is some sort've game or sick primitive form of righteousness. There's a reason white males are in power. They're clearly better people. If these types were in power we'd go straight back to the middle ages.

That gayporn tweet site cornering and bullying her like that. Taking the responsibility to destroy someone publicly is by far one of the worst forms of human behavior.

This article and events reminds me of this snippet

 

[Proud SJW]

I didn't I related it to gay people.

White males aren't capable of causing this situation. Think about this logically. If the situation was reversed and the pornstar instead said she would only work with gay men and not straight men (warning her other co workers the guy was a "straight arrow" and not a "cross over". You can't honestly sit there and say straight pr0n groups would publicly try to destroy her? And even if they did would the pressure of society/moral outrage really be there to have an effect?

Their moral ignorance has yet again killed another person. But it's all one big game to them sadly.

Moral ignorance never killed anyone, in the manner you're describing.
If you think that article is the story, wholly, then I'm afraid you're seriously out of touch with reality.

I'm reminded of that woman in that hospital in the UK who committed suicide as the result of that Australian radio shock-jock prank.
It doesn't matter what the stated reason was. There was far more in the way of unsaid and undocumented reasoning behind it.

The most common mistake is to assume the stated reason is the only reason. Don't fall into that well.

 

[Benny78]

Moral ignorance never killed anyone, in the manner you're describing.
If you think that article is the story, wholly, then I'm afraid you're seriously out of touch with reality.

I'm reminded of that woman in that hospital in the UK who committed suicide as the result of that Australian radio shock-jock prank.
It doesn't matter what the stated reason was. There was far more in the way of unsaid and undocumented reasoning behind it.

The most common mistake is to assume the stated reason is the only reason. Don't fall into that well.

It doesn't matter what the other factors are. It's ignorant to say publicly vilifying and destroying someone is not the reason she took her life. Either that alone is the entire reason or the straw that broke the camels back. Not a coincidence like you're implying.

If the whole world didn't turn on her on twitter 99.9% she'd still be alive. For now anyway.

 

[Proud SJW]

I didn't I related it to gay people.

White males aren't capable of causing this situation. Think about this logically. If the situation was reversed and the pornstar instead said she would only work with gay men and not straight men (warning her other co workers the guy was a "straight arrow" and not a "cross over". You can't honestly sit there and say straight pr0n groups would publicly try to destroy her? And even if they did would the pressure of society/moral outrage really be there to have an effect?

At the end of the day all this bullshit has pressured a 23 year old woman into taking her life.

And yeah, I might have misread you. I'll take another look tomorrow when I'm sober.
Right now, I think I should log off.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Another life taken by blood sucking minorities http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...t/news-story/02f6071201d946c52c18372401a4239b.

These things are apathetic creatures who think destroying other people is some sort've game or sick primitive form of righteousness. There's a reason white males are in power. They're clearly better people. If these types were in power we'd go straight back to the middle ages.

That gayporn tweet site cornering and bullying her like that. Taking the responsibility to destroy someone publicly is by far one of the worst forms of human behavior.

You might need to make the link between a tragic suicide and your belief in white male superiority a little clearer.

 

[Chief]

Look how ruthless this is, any other group wouldn't have dug this up! How are they allowed to hunt people like this!

http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...l/news-story/e866be909dc444d52760faa7d1c72bfa

Dig this up?

This has been doing the rounds for ages.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[yebiga]

You might need to make the link between a tragic suicide and your belief in white male superiority a little clearer.

And yet you portray yourself as both white and so superior

What can we call this strangest of conceits?

 

[Appa]

Look how ruthless this is, any other group wouldn't have dug this up! How are they allowed to hunt people like this!

http://www.news.com.au/national/pol...l/news-story/e866be909dc444d52760faa7d1c72bfa

It is tabloid media doing a story on something that will get them easy clicks. Yes, it is Ruthless and an immature article only the petty would be interested buthe media doing stories like this isn't really new. The hypocrisy is that many who would read and enjoy this article would similarity blast a conservative paper for doing a comparative petty story on some yes voters if the result was different.

 

[Father Jack]

That would be true if there wasn't a side that is clearly in the right and one that is clearly in the wrong.

 

[Gough]

They made a stupid comment and now it's bitten them on the arse. Bogans gonna boge.

 

[cartwright]

"My previous public comments regarding civil divorce never envisaged me separating from my wife, but rather our marriage from the state,” he said."
(http://citynews.com.au/2015/gay-law-change-may-force-us-to-divorce/)

Would have thought the best way to avoid media reporting on you, is to not make your comments public.... you know, unless you want the media attention.

 

[Xsess]

"Tolerance" is perhaps the most loaded word in the leftists arsenal. Its a gloss-over term that clears the way for grave injustice. I personally think "intolerance" delivers the best social outcomes, as it relates to crime, sexual assault et al.

 

[Father Jack]

what is it with conservatives and seeing things in simple black/white terms?

 

[ShanDog]

what is it with conservatives and seeing things in simple black/white terms?

It's part of the psychology that attracts people to conservatism. Some people prefer clear delineation of borders. This can be national or state borders, or the same process involved in categorising things for understanding. The more defined the border, the more comfortable they are because that feeds into the need for order.

 

[Xsess]

what is it with conservatives and seeing things in simple black/white terms?

I understand the nuances, however the statistics are compelling that "intolerance" can provide the best social outcome for the majority. Fact.

 

[ShanDog]

I understand the nuances, however the statistics are compelling that "intolerance" can provide the best social outcome for the majority. Fact.

If that's a fact, how do we carry on in a rapidly globalising world with higher rates of migration over bigger distances than ever before? Is Trump's wall genius after all?

 

[Father Jack]

I understand the nuances, however the statistics are compelling that "intolerance" can provide the best social outcome for the majority. Fact.

What statistics would they be?

 

[madmug]

If that's a fact, how do we carry on in a rapidly globalising world with higher rates of migration over bigger distances than ever before? Is Trump's wall genius after all?

And isn't that just the question. How do you think they can reconcile economic Liberalisation with social division? Unless the have some way of linking economic and social mobility, we will continue to have the ingredients of persistent & increasing severe social unrest. Even war.

Thus to ignore the social consequences of rigid division & isolation but increasing economic mobility as we have, is to court huge & likewise increasing economic costs in 'defense', borders, police etc. In the long run their must be both social & economic mobility, not just the one.

It'll either happen in the long term or we'll fight more & more & spend more & more.

 

[ShanDog]

And isn't that just the question. How do you think they can reconcile economic Liberalisation with social division? Unless the have some way of linking economic and social mobility, we will continue to have the ingredients of persistent & increasing severe social unrest. Even war.

Thus to ignore the social consequences of rigid division & isolation but increasing economic mobility as we have, is to court huge & likewise increasing economic costs in 'defense', borders, police etc. In the long run their must be both social & economic mobility, not just the one.

It'll either happen in the long term or we'll fight more & more & spend more & more.

It's like you're in my head.

Stay out of there between 7-8pm. That's ShanDog's time.

 

[Opts]

You want an example of how the left are hypocrites, bigots and bullies? Look at how people like me get treated by them. They ban and silence us despite NOT breaching any rules purely because we have different opinions from them. Last time I looked, followers of religions other than Islam weren't trying to kill us. If you think differently, then argue your point, don't silence everyone else.

And Chief, you're encouraging and condoning this.

 

[RobbieK]

You want an example of how the left are hypocrites, bigots and bullies? Look at how people like me get treated by them. They ban and silence us despite NOT breaching any rules purely because we have different opinions from them. Last time I looked, followers of religions other than Islam weren't trying to kill us. If you think differently, then argue your point, don't silence everyone else.

The statistics suggest that Muslims aren't the only ones committing acts of terror, in fact over the last 50 years they are slightly under-represented (https://theconversation.com/looking...eliefs-about-levels-of-risk-and-muslims-78449).

Ultimately the causes of terrorism are not purely religious (https://theconversation.com/challenging-the-notion-that-religion-fosters-violence-85677). The reasons for the current rise in Islamic terrorism is much more about the geopolitical situation in the middle east, the social and economic situation within Islamic-majority countries than it is about religion. There was a period of time in the 60s and 70s where the notable perpetrators of terrorist acts in Australia came from the Balkans, unsurprisingly at the same time as there was major conflict in that area. There was a time in the UK when the clear danger was presented by Catholics, as the conflict with Ireland died down so did the threat. In the US there is a lot of discussion right now about right-wing political violence, whether that "counts" as terrorism, as there seem to be as many attacks there that are committed by groups and individuals motivated by that political position as there are by groups and individuals who identify as Muslim (http://www.politifact.com/californi...rries-out-more-terror-attacks-us-soil-right-/).

Political violence has always been and probably will always be an ongoing challenge that we need to face as a society. There will always be groups who feel victimised or marginalised or under threat (and sometimes that feeling will be totally legitimate) who turn to violence as a means to solve their problems. Historically it is clear that it doesn't matter what religious/national/political identitiy these groups have, this isn't an issue limited to just one religion or just one nationality of just one political persuasion. This suggests the best approach to dealing with Islamic terrorism isn't to demonise the religion and ostracise its adherents (actually, this just makes things worse), but to address the political, social and economic factors that are driving an incredibly small minority of that religion's followers to engage in violence.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

That poster still doesn't understand free speech. He has no idea, and is a sook.

 

[Eagle Wrath]

Not to mention that there is one video on this page which comes from the centre right mainstream political party in Canada which I'd say is hardly alt right.

The centre right is where I want Australia to be. Not this far left crap and the far right has many problems as well.

 

[Opts]

The statistics suggest that Muslims aren't the only ones committing acts of terror, in fact over the last 50 years they are slightly under-represented (https://theconversation.com/looking...eliefs-about-levels-of-risk-and-muslims-78449).

Ultimately the causes of terrorism are not purely religious (https://theconversation.com/challenging-the-notion-that-religion-fosters-violence-85677). The reasons for the current rise in Islamic terrorism is much more about the geopolitical situation in the middle east, the social and economic situation within Islamic-majority countries than it is about religion. There was a period of time in the 60s and 70s where the notable perpetrators of terrorist acts in Australia came from the Balkans, unsurprisingly at the same time as there was major conflict in that area. There was a time in the UK when the clear danger was presented by Catholics, as the conflict with Ireland died down so did the threat. In the US there is a lot of discussion right now about right-wing political violence, whether that "counts" as terrorism, as there seem to be as many attacks there that are committed by groups and individuals motivated by that political position as there are by groups and individuals who identify as Muslim (http://www.politifact.com/californi...rries-out-more-terror-attacks-us-soil-right-/).

Political violence has always been and probably will always be an ongoing challenge that we need to face as a society. There will always be groups who feel victimised or marginalised or under threat (and sometimes that feeling will be totally legitimate) who turn to violence as a means to solve their problems. Historically it is clear that it doesn't matter what religious/national/political identitiy these groups have, this isn't an issue limited to just one religion or just one nationality of just one political persuasion. This suggests the best approach to dealing with Islamic terrorism isn't to demonise the religion and ostracise its adherents (actually, this just makes things worse), but to address the political, social and economic factors that are driving an incredibly small minority of that religion's followers to engage in violence.

I never said that Muslims were the only ones committing violence. My point was that many Muslims have the goal of ridding the planet of non-believers (I.e. us). No other religion is doing this. You can go back in history and most religions have inflicted violence on others but the point is that during the last couple of decades Islam has outnumbered all other religions combined by a long, long, long way.