The Insane "Social Justice" Thread pt IV

[BugI02]

What does that have to do with enlightenment principles? I don’t recall Locke mentioning anything about it.

"The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter. It is all pure." -- John Locke

 

[Leadeye]

The elusive white supremacist, the subject of so many modern woke conspiracy theories, seen as the root of all evil in the world.

 

[2A_Tom]

End American Imperialism and the spread of FREEDOM throughout the world!

 

[jamil]

Now granted, I’m not getting a “vaccination,” but I won’t bemoan those who do.

Everything about the Rona has been political, but apparently now the “vaccines” are racist:

Doctor Blames White Supremacy for Minority Vaccination Hesitation on MSNBC​

​

“According to data from the CDC, less than 10% of black, non-Hispanic people in the United States have received at least one dose of the vaccination. This is a higher population percentage in comparison to Asian-Americans (6.1%). However, it is significantly less than both the White and Hispanic populations, at 59.2% and 15.9% respectively.

This disparity has been attributed to a plethora of factors. ‘Vaccine hesitancy,’ or reluctance or refusal to get vaccinated, is disregarded as a sufficient explanation by many academics. University professors Ryan Lindsay and Elisa Sobo argue insufficient internet access, unreliable transportation, and lack of information are the real obstacles for minority communities.

Pernell, however, blames another culprit for the low minority vaccination rates.

Of the anti-vaxxer movement, she told Cross “I actually see that as another example of the proliferation of white supremacy. Because in particular, they are targeting communities of color…And they are targeting the historical injustices, the atrocity, that communities of color have experienced, as a way to play on their vulnerabilities. You have people who have questions. You have people unfortunately who have become susceptible to the conspiracy theories.”


So again, we have the left’s bigotry of low expectations and belief that their constituency is too stupid to survive in modern society. And if their constituents don’t have access to the information, how is it that the “white supremacists” are “targeting” them?

It's expected. There is only one tool in the belt for CRT. Everything is systemic racism, the only question to answer is how is it racist. Whether or not it is racist doesn't even enter their minds. Of course it is. Now we just "problematize" to find how.

I've heard anecdotally that the real reason people in black communities are hesitant to get vaccinated is that they've more or less accumulated a distrust the government on that sort of thing. Like the Tuskegee Study. The above "White Supremacy" problematizing, of course, is nonsense.

 

[jamil]

You should get out more

1) John Cox
2) Kevin Faulconer
3) Jeff Hewitt
4) Doug Ose

But those are serious candidates who are white men, so not 'stunning and brave' enough, I'm sure

You probably haven't heard much about them (no friends from California?) because the media is hyping the candidate that they're pretty sure will guarantee a republican loss - kind of like how they'll be trying to prop up Romney in '24

I cannot fathom why your vaunted 'just the facts' methodology can't see that most of the folks who will be swayed by the queerness of the candidate are already invested in left/progressive politics and politicians. I can't give you the ratio, but I'm reasonably certain that the ratio of weirdos who wouldn't normally vote republican, but would because of the Jenner candidacy, to those voters who normally would vote republican but will be put off by the Jenner candidacy, is not 1 to 1

I also would point to the case of PaulF as an example of fringe elements (like Jenner) who prove to be unreliable, fair weather allies the first time they don't get what they want or think they can get more of what they want elsewhere

This sounds a lot more like you're just trying to find reasons to hate people. I never said that Jenner was the only candidate. That's actually irrelevant.

 

[BugI02]

No. Jenner is on the CPAC stage because he’s running for California Governor as a Republican. Are there any other Republicans running for Governor in California?

This sounds a lot more like you're just trying to find reasons to hate people. I never said that Jenner was the only candidate. That's actually irrelevant.

Backing and filling?

Kut, is that you?

 

[KLB]

You probably haven't heard much about them (no friends from California?) because the media is hyping the candidate that they're pretty sure will guarantee a republican loss - kind of like how they'll be trying to prop up Romney in '24

Like they did Trump in 2016?

 

[BugI02]

Essentially, yes. That got away from them because Trump had a much larger skill set than delusion, self-mutilation and being famous for being famous

If it can get elected and if it can successfully run a heavily indebted and heavily Democratic state, it might seem in hindsight like an viable choice

Given how big those ifs really are, I won't be suspending respiration

 

[IndyBeerman]

I didn't like Jenner before when he considered himself a man, nor do I now.

Just because he won a decathlon gold medal back in the day don't mean .

I think he went that way because he was no longer relevant.

 

[jamil]

Backing and filling?

Kut, is that you?

Well. Let's look at what was said.

You said:

Its as if they think there are millions of untapped votes for the party if they only can convince them they are not 'transphobic' by groveling and pandering enough

I said:

No. Jenner is on the CPAC stage because he’s running for California Governor as a Republican. Are there any other Republicans running for Governor in California?

I didn't bother to see if there were any other Republicans. So what if there were. If any of them have some kind of value that's congruent with CPAC's values, invite them too. Do they need to invite EVERY candidate for governor? What about Faulconer the frontrunner? Looking at him, isn't he just another CoC candidate? Should he speak at CPAC?

The point is that Jenner being there is because he's a candidate for Governor not "groveling" and "pandering". If Jenner shouldn't be there it should be because what he says is discordant with CPAC values. Whatever issues he has about his sex has nothing to do with his value as a speaker. Point remains. You try to frame this that the only reason they invited him is to pander to, Idunno, maybe the 3 or 4 transgender Republicans.

 

[jamil]

"The Bible is one of the greatest blessings bestowed by God on the children of men. It has God for its author; salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture for its matter. It is all pure." -- John Locke

Oh. So the particular principle of enlightenment you're implying here is God hates fags?

I'm more encouraged by Tom's Christianity.

 

[jamil]

You should get out more

1) John Cox
2) Kevin Faulconer
3) Jeff Hewitt
4) Doug Ose

But those are serious candidates who are white men, so not 'stunning and brave' enough, I'm sure

You probably haven't heard much about them (no friends from California?) because the media is hyping the candidate that they're pretty sure will guarantee a republican loss - kind of like how they'll be trying to prop up Romney in '24

I cannot fathom why your vaunted 'just the facts' methodology can't see that most of the folks who will be swayed by the queerness of the candidate are already invested in left/progressive politics and politicians. I can't give you the ratio, but I'm reasonably certain that the ratio of weirdos who wouldn't normally vote republican, but would because of the Jenner candidacy, to those voters who normally would vote republican but will be put off by the Jenner candidacy, is not 1 to 1

I also would point to the case of PaulF as an example of fringe elements (like Jenner) who prove to be unreliable, fair weather allies the first time they don't get what they want or think they can get more of what they want elsewhere

And back to this. You still seem to think Jenner's appearance at CPAC is because they think his trangender will bring in more votes? Several posts into this and you still think that's my motivation? Can I make it any clearer than what I've already said, because I don't think I can. I think you're just

I think they invited Jenner because he's famous. An attendance booster. But that has nothing to do with my whole point in this discussion. You guys act like you must attack him because he's odd. He has fake boobs and wears a dress and makeup. I think that's a pretty ****** reason to attack people. What did he say that upsets you. Do you even know? That's the relevant thing. But you go on thinking that God requires you to hate people that look odd. Your body of posts in this discussion make it pretty obvious that's the greatest depth of evaluation you've put into it.

 

[jamil]

I didn't like Jenner before when he considered himself a man, nor do I now.

Just because he won a decathlon gold medal back in the day don't mean .

I think he went that way because he was no longer relevant.

You know, I don't really care for the guy either. At first I thought his switch was to get attention. Because he's said some conservative things, people aren't calling him "stunning and brave" anymore. I don't think he's getting the kind of attention he might want now. And he's stuck with the dress and whatnot so I guess he's committed to it.

I dunno. At this point I also have a hard time believing that someone would make such a drastic change like that just for attention. Where I'm at with it, I think that's between him and his therapist. I can separate that, the woke response to him, and his politics. I don't feel like I have to attack him as if he's an enemy trying to invade.

I don't think he has a shot at winning the GOP primary, let alone becoming governor. Having read in a little more on the race, I think the CoC candidate's going to win the primary easily, but lose the election, because GOP is literally Satan's party.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Oh. So the particular principle of enlightenment you're implying here is God hates fags?

LOL DAMN. I thought I was the only offensive one left here...

 

[Hawkeye]

I didn't like Jenner before when he considered himself a man, nor do I now.

Just because he won a decathlon gold medal back in the day don't mean .

I think he went that way because he was no longer relevant.

Well, maybe being married into the Kardashian Klan would do that to a guy?

 

[actaeon277]

Larry Elder is entering the race. I think he will poll better than Jenner

 

[BugI02]

Well. Let's look at what was said.

You said:




I said:



I didn't bother to see if there were any other Republicans. [then why did you ask?] So what if there were. If any of them have some kind of value that's congruent with CPAC's values, invite them too. Do they need to invite EVERY candidate for governor? What about Faulconer the frontrunner? Looking at him, isn't he just another CoC candidate? Should he speak at CPAC?

The point is that Jenner being there is because he's a candidate for Governor not "groveling" and "pandering". If Jenner shouldn't be there it should be because what he says is discordant with CPAC values. Whatever issues he has about his sex has nothing to do with his value as a speaker. Point remains. You try to frame this that the only reason they invited him is to pander to, Idunno, maybe the 3 or 4 transgender Republicans.

So, which is it? Is Jenner saying something the frontrunner or the other candidates are not? Why aren't they all invited to CPAC, if not, especially the frontrunner. If Jenner isn't saying anything unique, then I'm going to have to conclude it is there because of its novelty value

It's a republican Caligula

Edit: I think I was more right than I thought. You didn't have any California friends to give you their 411, so your 'careful study of all sides of the issue' amounted to anointing Jenner as deserving of a CPAC slot because, though he may be a freak, he's our freak

 

[jamil]

So, which is it? Is Jenner saying something the frontrunner or the other candidates are not? Why aren't they all invited to CPAC, if not, especially the frontrunner. If Jenner isn't saying anything unique, then I'm going to have to conclude it is there because of its novelty value

It's a republican Caligula

Edit: I think I was more right than I thought. You didn't have any California friends to give you their 411, so your 'careful study of all sides of the issue' amounted to anointing Jenner as deserving of a CPAC slot because, though he may be a freak, he's our freak

Is that your binary thinking at work again? Not attacking him m, in your mind, must imply some kind of ownership?

I don’t doubt that the more you think the righter you think you are. No one here anointed anyone. They invited Jenner. If you don’t like what he said, attack that all you want.

 

[jamil]

Larry Elder is entering the race. I think he will poll better than Jenner

Doesn’t matter. The Chamber-o-commerce Republican will win the primary. And no matter who wins the primary the Democrat will win the Governor’s race.

 

[BugI02]

I don’t doubt that the more you think the righter you think you are

Pleased to meet you, Mr Kettle