Thread for people being oppressed by Trump

[Tgo01]

This thread is for any examples of people being directly oppressed by Trump.

Apparently there was some women's march yesterday because Trump is an evil pig of a man, yet like, they weren't actually protesting anything specific, just the generic "He's Trump so he's bad."

So we'll use this thread for actual real world examples of Trump and his administration oppressing people.

I figure since we're bound to hear thousands of stories over the next 8 years we might as well condense them all to one thread so we don't clutter up the rest of the forums with the work of Trump's brown shirts.

[Warriorbird]

During or before his Presidency?

[chalion]

http://i.imgur.com/qrHSJCZ.png

[Tgo01]

During or before his Presidency?

Sure.

[Neveragain]

Here's a list of Veteran groups Trump oppressed by fundraising 5.6 million dollars for.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/31/list-veterans-groups-donald-trump-says-he-donated/

He's literally Hitler.

[Deathravin]

I don't recall pro-gun people waiting until there was a bill proposal before standing up and demanding their rights stay protected.

[Neveragain]

I don't recall pro-gun people waiting until there was a bill proposal before standing up and demanding their rights stay protected.

What right is being threatened to women by Trump, I think that's what this thread is about?

You won't be able to name one.

[Deathravin]

One? What do I win if I can find just one? I wonder how quickly you'll move your goal posts if I do.

Abortion rights
Source: Third Presidental Debate (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/full-transcript-third-2016-presidential-debate-230063)

[Neveragain]

One? What do I win if I can find just one? I wonder how quickly you'll move your goal posts if I do.

Abortion rights
Source: Third Presidental Debate (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/full-transcript-third-2016-presidential-debate-230063)

Not a right defined in the constitution, try again.

[Geijon Khyree]

His Home Mortgage insurance order was a kick in the pants from the way it reads.

[Deathravin]

Geijon... According to Tgo and neveragain, people (or maybe just women, not sure on that) can only protest for civil rights. They can't protest against policies. Only rights. But not all rights, only rights as currently defined in the constitution. And since they're the gatekeepers at to why somebody could protest, you need to try again.


Not a right defined in the constitution, try again.

The 1973 and 1992 SCOTUS justices disagree with you there.

[Neveragain]

Geijon... According to Tgo and neveragain, people (or maybe just women, not sure on that) can only protest for civil rights. They can't protest against policies. Only rights. But not all rights, only rights as currently defined in the constitution. And since they're the gatekeepers at to why somebody could protest, you need to try again.



The 1973 and 1992 SCOTUS justices disagree with you there.

Yea, it's to bad the SCOTUS doesn't make law. I mean if we can agree to an abortion only being done when a woman's life is in danger that's at least a step forward.

[Stolis]

His Home Mortgage insurance order was a kick in the pants from the way it reads.

I think that halt on that is more of a let's do a bit more research on if we should really be decreasing funds from the FHA, which is still recovering from the hit it took back in 2013. 30 bucks a month for someone qualifying for a home isn't "dramatically different" for those looking for an FHA home either. We're talking reducing their loan borrowing amount a massive.. 5-7 thousand dollars. "Dramatic" for the homebuyer, I'm sure.

[Whirlin]

I think that halt on that is more of a let's do a bit more research on if we should really be decreasing funds from the FHA, which is still recovering from the hit it took back in 2013. 30 bucks a month for someone qualifying for a home isn't "dramatically different" for those looking for an FHA home either. We're talking reducing their loan borrowing amount a massive.. 5-7 thousand dollars. "Dramatic" for the homebuyer, I'm sure.

Your calculations mirror my own, at 200k mortage, at 4% interest rate, you'd pay 954. With the additional 0.25% interest, the payments will be $983. That increases the total cost of the loan by $10,457 over the life of the loan. If the scope of the executive order was forward originated loans, I would agree with you, and have less of a problem with it. However, since it's retroactive, and hits only the FHA market, which is usually those that simply don't have much money/income, it ends up being a hit to the housing market.

So, to answer the OP, as someone planning on putting his house on the market in the spring, this impacts my perspective buyers, and may influence my ability to sell my home.

[drauz]

Yea, it's to bad the SCOTUS doesn't make law. I mean if we can agree to an abortion only being done when a woman's life is in danger that's at least a step back.

Fixed

[Neveragain]

Fixed

OOh what's wrong Drauz, don't want to have to take responsibility for your own actions when you knock a chic up?

[drauz]

OOh what's wrong Drauz, don't want to have to take responsibility for your own actions when you knock a chic up?

Having an abortion would be responsible.

[Neveragain]

His Home Mortgage insurance order was a kick in the pants from the way it reads.

Is owning a home now a human right????

[Neveragain]

Having an abortion would be responsible.

How so?

[drauz]

How so?

I don't have the mental temperament or financial stability to properly raise a child.

[Gelston]

I don't have the mental temperament or financial stability to properly raise a child.

Sell him to Nike.

[Neveragain]

I don't have the mental temperament or financial stability to properly raise a child.

Then you should probably let the woman know in advance that if she gets prego she has to get an abortion.

[Stolis]

Your calculations mirror my own, at 200k mortage, at 4% interest rate, you'd pay 954. With the additional 0.25% interest, the payments will be $983. That increases the total cost of the loan by $10,457 over the life of the loan. If the scope of the executive order was forward originated loans, I would agree with you, and have less of a problem with it. However, since it's retroactive, and hits only the FHA market, which is usually those that simply don't have much money/income, it ends up being a hit to the housing market.

So, to answer the OP, as someone planning on putting his house on the market in the spring, this impacts my perspective buyers, and may influence my ability to sell my home.

True, but one thing to consider is the premium drop hadn't been enacted yet and wasn't going to be until the 27th or 28th. The future buyer and current homeowner never saw the 30 dollars saved per month in their payment. Find a way to save a dollar a day and it becomes a moot point. I'm not saying 30 bucks in your wallet a month wouldn't have been nicer, but I also don't think IMO it's going to be that big of a deal either.

[drauz]

Then you should probably let the woman know in advance that if she gets prego she has to get an abortion.

I'm no fool, I wrap my tool.

[Neveragain]

I'm no fool, I wrap my tool.

LOL, ok. Still may be wise to let her know, just say'n.

[Whirlin]

True, but one thing to consider is the premium drop hadn't been enacted yet and wasn't going to be until the 27th or 28th. The future buyer and current homeowner never saw the 30 dollars saved per month in their payment. Find a way to save a dollar a day and it becomes a moot point. I'm not saying 30 bucks in your wallet a month wouldn't have been nicer, but I also don't think IMO it's going to be that big of a deal either.
I mean, that's the difference between a standard and a premium Gemstone account! I'm not saying that what you're saying is untrue, but I'd consider finances to be something more akin to a straw that breaks a camel's back, death by a thousand cuts, etc, etc. a small bit here, another bit there, and then there goes any discretionary income. Also, I'd say it's a pretty shitty thing to do to make all FHA borrowers pay more via an EO your first few days in office. That couldn't just go through standard means?

[Parkbandit]

Your calculations mirror my own, at 200k mortage, at 4% interest rate, you'd pay 954. With the additional 0.25% interest, the payments will be $983. That increases the total cost of the loan by $10,457 over the life of the loan. If the scope of the executive order was forward originated loans, I would agree with you, and have less of a problem with it. However, since it's retroactive, and hits only the FHA market, which is usually those that simply don't have much money/income, it ends up being a hit to the housing market.

So, to answer the OP, as someone planning on putting his house on the market in the spring, this impacts my perspective buyers, and may influence my ability to sell my home.

If $20 a month will dissuade a buyer to purchase your home.. you're doing something very wrong.

[drauz]

LOL, ok. Still may be wise to let her know, just say'n.

I'm in a long term relationship. You can rest assured it has been discussed.

[Stolis]

I mean, that's the difference between a standard and a premium Gemstone account! I'm not saying that what you're saying is untrue, but I'd consider finances to be something more akin to a straw that breaks a camel's back, death by a thousand cuts, etc, etc. a small bit here, another bit there, and then there goes any discretionary income. Also, I'd say it's a pretty shitty thing to do to make all FHA borrowers pay more via an EO your first few days in office. That couldn't just go through standard means?

Bills are always death by a thousand cuts haha. Every time that damn Simutronics one hits I'm like ah you bastards, already?

I'm not sure if Obama signing it in was an EO or a bill, but yeah it would have been something I wish there was more discussion leading up to it opposed to just dropping the hammer on it. Hell, trying to get all the info on it from the major news sites was a bit of a struggle for the first few hours, then some of the finance sites started to dive deeper on it. The one thing I did read (just can't remember where) said something about they wanted to look more into it to make sure it doesn't cause long term harm to the FHA program. It made sense, but of course the next question to me was, "Well who didn't look into it beforehand to begin with, or what didn't they answer well enough that caused a bit of hesitation?"

[drauz]

LOL, ok. Still may be wise to let her know, just say'n.

Now here is a scary story. The lesson? Always make sure they swallow!

http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/02/26/man-receives-oral-sex-ordered-to-pay-child-support/

[Deathravin]

Yea, it's to bad the SCOTUS doesn't make law.

So in your mind the only thing that can justify a protest is when you're against a proposed constitutional amendment? That's pretty fucking specific.


I mean if we can agree to an abortion only being done when a woman's life is in danger that's at least a step forward.

I suppose we could also just agree that access to safe, private, free, and legal abortion should be available to all women and that it's their choice whether or not to go through with a pregnancy. But that's just as much of a ridiculous request as anything you've said here today.

You know. Every few years or so I say to myself, "Why did I stop posting on GSForums?" and I make a few comments to things. Then people like you make it just crystal fucking clear again. Have fun in your echo chamber. I hope keeping those fingers in your ears doesn't cause an infection.

[Neveragain]

So in your mind the only thing that can justify a protest is when you're against a proposed constitutional amendment? That's pretty fucking specific.



I suppose we could also just agree that access to safe, private, free, and legal abortion should be available to all women and that it's their choice whether or not to go through with a pregnancy. But that's just as much of a ridiculous request as anything you've said here today.

You know. Every few years or so I say to myself, "Why did I stop posting on GSForums?" and I make a few comments to things. Then people like you make it just crystal fucking clear again. Have fun in your echo chamber. I hope keeping those fingers in your ears doesn't cause an infection.

This is all great, still looking for the oppression.

When you use the word "free" you mean the tax payer is funding it, you just lost your right to choice. It is no longer private, this is when you will be faced with the oppression that you are not faced with now.

[Tenlaar]

When you use the word "free" you mean the tax payer is funding it, you just lost your right to choice.

Choices should not be limited to ones that you agree with.

[Neveragain]

Choices should not be limited to ones that you agree with.

They most certainly are when other peoples money is footing the bill. It's like living with your parents, you live by their rules.

[Latrinsorm]

This thread is for any examples of people being directly oppressed by Trump.

Apparently there was some women's march yesterday because Trump is an evil pig of a man, yet like, they weren't actually protesting anything specific, just the generic "He's Trump so he's bad."Let me google that for you. (https://www.womensmarch.com/mission/)

[chalion]

https://youtu.be/jhrwC2BoAkE

[drauz]

Let me google that for you. (https://www.womensmarch.com/mission/)

I don't understand their cause. What rights do they think men have that women don't?

[time4fun]

I don't understand their cause. What rights do they think men have that women don't?

....seriously?

[drauz]

....seriously?

Yes.

[time4fun]

Yes.

The thing about ignorance- it's not an accident, it's a strategy.

[drauz]

The thing about willful ignorance- it's not an accident, it's a strategy.

Let me fix that for you. Otherwise it seems like you don't know what the word means.

Asking for the information is now willful ignorance....

Comments like this don't help at all. You can't fault people for asking for information. I mean for fucks sake, that is the dumbest thing I've heard today.

[time4fun]

Let me fix that for you. Otherwise it seems like you don't know what the word means.

Asking for the information is now willful ignorance....

Comments like this don't help at all. You can't fault people for asking for information. I mean for fucks sake, that is the dumbest thing I've heard today.

I have no interest in helping you because the request is insincere.

In order to take your question seriously, we would have to believe that an adult in this country who follows politics and who is an active poster in the politics section of an internet forum has somehow managed to live their life totally unaware of the notion of women's rights and the myriad complaints of rampant inequality. The person would need to have somehow managed to read only articles- and even headlines- that don't at all discuss women's rights, and to have never once heard a single other person in their own life talking about it (nor witnessed a single women facing discrimination). But obviously that's ridiculous.

In fact, you are quite well aware of the issue of women's rights and the specific inequalities that it seeks to address, and you have decided that the inequalities don't exist/aren't serious. You were incredibly careful to frame the question in a way as to constrain the subject, and you deliberately phrased it in a way to cast inherent doubt- "what rights do they think men have that they don't?". You attempted to make it a perception, not a fact because that's your skeptical view of the situation.

The posturing here has two goals: asking the question at all (and then phrasing it with deliberate skepticism) attempts to undercut the notion that gender inequality is both rampant and obvious, and it likewise attempts to project responsibility for your claimed ignorance onto someone else. The discrimination doesn't exist unless someone is willing to "help you" to "understand" it.

So your strategy is to mask your own political beliefs as ignorance and a desire to learn when in fact it's an intentional attempt to cast doubt on the reasons for a movement you don't agree with.

[drauz]

I have no interest in helping you because the request is insincere.

In order to take your question seriously, we would have to believe that an adult in this country who follows politics and who is an active poster in the politics section of an internet forum has somehow managed to live their life totally unaware of the notion of women's rights and the myriad complaints of rampant inequality. The person would need to have somehow managed to read only articles- and even headlines- that don't at all discuss women's rights, and to have never once heard a single other person in their own life talking about it (nor witnessed a single women facing discrimination). But obviously that's ridiculous.

In fact, you are quite well aware of the issue of women's rights and the specific inequalities that it seeks to address, and you have decided that the inequalities don't exist/aren't serious. You were incredibly careful to frame the question in a way as to constrain the subject, and you deliberately phrased it in a way to cast inherent doubt- "what rights do they think men have that they don't?". You attempted to make it a perception, not a fact because that's your skeptical view of the situation.

The posturing here has two goals: asking the question at all (and then phrasing it with deliberate skepticism) attempts to undercut the notion that gender inequality is both rampant and obvious, and it likewise attempts to project responsibility for your claimed ignorance onto someone else. The discrimination doesn't exist unless someone is willing to "help you" to "understand" it.

So your strategy is to mask your own political beliefs as ignorance and a desire to learn when in fact it's an intentional attempt to cast doubt on the reasons for a movement you don't agree with.

You seem to think my response was carefully crafted. Let me dispel that for you, it wasn't.

I have looked it up on a few occasions and seen what people from both sides say. Perhaps things are different on your side of the country but I've never seen rampant gender inequality. The person who oversees my entire company is a woman and I've never heard someone say anything derogatory regarding that. So in my world it isn't rampant or obvious. You assume I read all these news articles that they talk about gender inequality. I've read a few but I could probably count the total on both hands. In these articles, which I've read from both points of view, they haven't been able to convince me that it is "rampant and obvious". I was looking for your point of view, but that doesn't seem like it will happen. I could show you actual laws that disadvantage men, but you have your blinders on. You aren't concerned with that, I would guess because it doesn't effect you.

I like how you seem to assert that I am sexist with that last line, that I believe women should be less than men. I've been fairly vocal supporting abortion on this forum. I'm not convinced that the pay gap isn't explainable(this is where most of the articles I've read have focused). Maybe you could tell me exactly what my political beliefs are. Just so you are informed I'll give you a little information, I've only voted Republican once in my life and that was for Bush in his first term. I voted for Obama twice and Gary Johnson this time around.

Sorry I don't just blindly believe because you say it's so. Put up or shut up.

EDIT: This is why people say they are an egalitarian but will say they aren't a feminist. They are supposed to mean the same thing, but people see it doesn't anymore. Feminism has been on the decline since the early 90s.

[drauz]

The reason I asked the question was because when they say "women's rights are human rights" it implies that there are rights they don't have that men do have. I don't know what those are, so I asked the question.

[drauz]

Let me ask you this.

Would you be opposed to requiring birth of a child being a dual decision? Requiring both the man and woman consent. The man would be allowed to "opt out" if the woman wanted to keep the child but the man didn't.

[Tgo01]

I have no interest in helping you because the request is insincere.

time4fun: I say this is true!
drauz: Okay. Prove it.
time4fun: Seriously? You want me to prove my claim?
drauz: Yes.
time4fun: That's absurd! My claim is obviously true! I have no interest in helping you see why it's true.
time4fun: Did I mention I used to teach a logic course?

[Enuch]

....seriously?

I am not in the meme game but if anyone else has one please insert -- triggered.

Ideally one of Pterodactyls flying out of a vagina shooting grizzly bear laser beams at unsuspecting men below.

[time4fun]

I am not in the meme game but if anyone else has one please insert -- triggered.

Ideally one of Pterodactyls flying out of a vagina shooting grizzly bear laser beams at unsuspecting men below.

How about one showing a grown man with his head shoved up his own ass saying, "I really don't see any problems"

[drauz]

How about one showing a grown man with his head shoved up his own ass saying, "I really don't see any problems"

http://i.imgur.com/d0VVEsH.gif

[Tgo01]

How about one showing a grown man with his head shoved up his own ass saying, "I really don't see any problems"

Ah yes, the iron clad logic of "You have to be <insert discriminated class here> to see the discrimination!"

It's a classic. You can't win against this argument because just not being part of that discriminated class precludes you from even beginning to understand what sort of discrimination that class goes through, so you just have to take people's word for it.

This is why the left calls blacks "Uncle Toms" who go against the narrative because here you have people who are a part of <insert discriminated class here> saying "I don't see what you all are talking about" so you have to assume they do see the discrimination, they just prefer to ignore it in order to garner some sort of favor with the white man. Like the white man is literally THE white man so if you garner some sort of favor with this one entity then somewhere down the line a white boss or a white politician or another white man in power is going to reward you for your Uncle Tom behavior.

In short; you are a piece of shit, time4fun.

[time4fun]

http://i.imgur.com/d0VVEsH.gif

Amazing what you can and can't teach yourself to find, isn't it?

[drauz]

Amazing what you can and can't teach yourself to find, isn't it?

I have tons of gifs saved as favorites on imgur...

Its funny, all this effort you've put in since the start of this you could have come up with an actual argument or links to someone else's argument at least.

[Neveragain]

Honestly quit bitching about how nature, God, the spaghetti monster....whatever you believe in, designed your body to function. It's like yelling at gravity because you jumped off a building and actually fell then asking for pity.

[Juicebox]

Trump grabbed me by the pussy... and I don't even have one of those.

[time4fun]

I have tons of gifs saved as favorites on imgur...

Its funny, all this effort you've put in since the start of this you could have come up with an actual argument or links to someone else's argument at least.

He says, sitting on an internet-connected computer spending an hour talking about how he doesn't know anything instead of, you know, learning something. It's the metaphoric equivalent of sitting on a mountain of food and saying, "I'm not going to eat until someone feeds me!". Except in this case, I'm calling your bluff- you're not going to eat because you don't want to.

I'm not interested in playing into the politics of plausible deniability. I'm not your mother, and it's not my job to feed you.

There's not a single person here who actually believes that you don't know anything at all about the inequalities that women are marching for, nor is there anyone who's going to believe that you just couldn't figure out a way to educate yourself. But there are people who genuinely believe that it's a woman's job to educate men about issues of gender inequality- which effectively displaces all responsibility for the issues.

In short, I'd rather litigate the cynical strategy of political ignorance than take your bait and end up litigating the existence of gender inequality.

[Neveragain]

He says, sitting on an internet-connected computer spending an hour talking about how he doesn't know anything instead of, you know, learning something. It's the metaphoric equivalent of sitting on a mountain of food and saying, "I'm not going to eat until someone feeds me!". Except in this case, I'm calling your bluff- you're not going to eat because you don't want to.

I'm not interested in playing into the politics of plausible deniability. I'm not your mother, and it's not my job to feed you.

There's not a single person here who actually believes that you don't know anything at all about the inequalities that women are marching for, nor is there anyone who's going to believe that you just couldn't figure out a way to educate yourself. But there are people who genuinely believe that it's a woman's job to educate men about issues of gender inequality- which effectively displaces all responsibility for the issues.

In short, I'd rather litigate the cynical strategy of political ignorance than take your bait and end up litigating the existence of gender inequality.

Actually we don't know what they are marching about, it makes it even more confusing when they exclude a large number of women that they don't agree with from the march. If you knew what you are all up in arms about, you would be able to name them instead of playing "guess what's in my pocket?" in this case the answer is "nothing."

[Tgo01]

He says, sitting on an internet-connected computer spending an hour talking about how he doesn't know anything instead of, you know, learning something.

Now she's using the "I'm right! GOOGLE IT!" argument.

Keep in mind folks; she used to teach logic. Let that sink in for a minute.

[drauz]

He says, sitting on an internet-connected computer spending an hour talking about how he doesn't know anything instead of, you know, learning something. It's the metaphoric equivalent of sitting on a mountain of food and saying, "I'm not going to eat until someone feeds me!". Except in this case, I'm calling your bluff- you're not going to eat because you don't want to.

I'm not interested in playing into the politics of plausible deniability. I'm not your mother, and it's not my job to feed you.

There's not a single person here who actually believes that you don't know anything at all about the inequalities that women are marching for, nor is there anyone who's going to believe that you just couldn't figure out a way to educate yourself. But there are people who genuinely believe that it's a woman's job to educate men about issues of gender inequality- which effectively displaces all responsibility for the issues.

In short, I'd rather litigate the cynical strategy of political ignorance than take your bait and end up litigating the existence of gender inequality.

I've already let you move the goalposts from rights to illegal discrimination. I was asking about rights specifically. That is what their website implied, that women didn't have the same rights as men. Maybe I am reading their message incorrectly and they mean discrimination/equality.

You have literally labeled me a sexist because I believe that women have the same rights as men. By rights I am of course speaking about laws on the books. You don't seem to have an argument for that so you switched over to discrimination. To that I will grant you that women probably are more likely to be discriminated against in the workplace (though I still don't think it is rampant and obvious). That wasn't my original contention though, now was it?

I've extended an olive branch, try not to burn it down.

[Ceyrin]

I've already let you move the goalposts from rights to illegal discrimination. I was asking about rights specifically. That is what their website implied, that women didn't have the same rights as men. Maybe I am reading their message incorrectly and they mean discrimination/equality.

You have literally labeled me a sexist because I believe that women have the same rights as men. By rights I am of course speaking about laws on the books. You don't seem to have an argument for that so you switched over to discrimination. To that I will grant you that women probably are more likely to be discriminated against in the workplace (though I still don't think it is rampant and obvious). That wasn't my original contention though, now was it?

I've extended an olive branch, try not to burn it down.

From a legal perspective, you're not wrong.

Our society (I say this because I think the problem extends beyond USA) has been consistently attempting to undermine women and their opinions of themselves and other women for decades. They do this not just through women, but through the perceptions and expectations of men as well. I imagine this can certainly feel like oppression, since it appears to be from the outside via my own experiences. This oppression of choices and of self, likely manifests as feelings of a lack of rights by virtue of feelings that spur women to make choices not for themselves but for the expectations of a society that doesn't appreciate them for who they really are, but who we (figurative) want them to be.

[Neveragain]

From a legal perspective, you're not wrong.

Our society (I say this because I think the problem extends beyond USA) has been consistently attempting to undermine women and their opinions of themselves and other women for decades. They do this not just through women, but through the perceptions and expectations of men as well. I imagine this can certainly feel like oppression, since it appears to be from the outside via my own experiences. This oppression of choices and of self, likely manifests as feelings of a lack of rights by virtue of feelings that spur women to make choices not for themselves but for the expectations of a society that doesn't appreciate them for who they really are, but who we (figurative) want them to be.

This. Feminism went from obtaining equal rights to shaming women for what makes women the beautiful creatures they are. The fact is men and women are not the same and that's what makes it so fucking cool.

[drauz]

This oppression of choices and of self, likely manifests as feelings of a lack of rights by virtue of feelings that spur women to make choices not for themselves but for the expectations of a society that doesn't appreciate them for who they really are, but who we (figurative) want them to be.

Couldn't the same be said for men?

[Gelston]

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/16265658_1422830981108626_2412422901213656308_n.jp g?oh=6e5fab2dff3e3350c7087c4ee125bb00&oe=591AAB07

People with bad taste in pizza are being oppressed.

[drauz]

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s480x480/16265658_1422830981108626_2412422901213656308_n.jp g?oh=6e5fab2dff3e3350c7087c4ee125bb00&oe=591AAB07

People with bad taste in pizza are being oppressed.

This is something I can agree with.

[Ceyrin]

Couldn't the same be said for men?

Yes.

[time4fun]

I've already let you move the goalposts from rights to illegal discrimination. I was asking about rights specifically. That is what their website implied, that women didn't have the same rights as men. Maybe I am reading their message incorrectly and they mean discrimination/equality.

You have literally labeled me a sexist because I believe that women have the same rights as men. By rights I am of course speaking about laws on the books. You don't seem to have an argument for that so you switched over to discrimination. To that I will grant you that women probably are more likely to be discriminated against in the workplace (though I still don't think it is rampant and obvious). That wasn't my original contention though, now was it?

I've extended an olive branch, try not to burn it down.

And look- he finally admits what I've been accusing him of all along.

Your question was loaded, and it was nothing but feigned ignorance.

And by the way, it takes some serious cognitive dissonance to attempt to sequester rights from discrimination. That's just one of the more self serving attempts at plausible deniability I've ever seen.

And no one ever called you sexist. You can crawl out of your victim stance now.

[Tgo01]

You can crawl out of your victim stance now.

No amount of black pots and black kettles in the world can be used to describe this sentence.

[drauz]

And look- he finally admits what I've been accusing him of all along.

Your question was loaded, and it was nothing but feigned ignorance.

And by the way, it takes some serious cognitive dissonance to attempt to sequester rights from discrimination. That's just one of the more self serving attempts at plausible deniability I've ever seen.

And no one ever called you sexist. You can crawl out of your victim stance now.

And there went the olive branch.


So your strategy is to mask your own political beliefs as ignorance and a desire to learn when in fact it's an intentional attempt to cast doubt on the reasons for a movement you don't agree with.

You know what you meant, don't try to bullshit me. Typical alt-left persona, throw labels out and then pull back when you're called out on it. Then try to say I am looking for victimhood.

Discrimination and rights are two different things.... Discrimination can be achieved thru laws, but that isn't the case here now is it. You know full and well that women have all the rights that men do. You are playing a game of hide the ball and putting words in my mouth. To that I say fuck you. You pick and choose which parts to respond to and act like I never said the rest. Go fuck yourself, people like you are the reason women are leaving feminism in droves. You play the victim and want to be part of an oppressed group. Let me tell you, you aren't. Every time you speak I question all the liberal leaning I have.

I tried being polite and have an actual discussion but you wouldn't have it. Keep moving those goalposts.

Just to be clear what have you been accusing me of this entire time, cause other than sexist I'm baffled.

I've shown my willingness to change my mind, ask Latrin. Latrin responded with actual information that I was unaware of and it changed my mind. I am willing to admit when I am wrong, that is something you seem completely incapable of doing.

I'm going to bed, but just in case the message wasn't clear. Go fuck yourself you pompous, condescending, piece of human garbage.

[Gelston]

And there went the olive branch.



You know what you meant, don't try to bullshit me. Typical alt-left persona, throw labels out and then pull back when you're called out on it. Then try to say I am looking for victimhood.

Discrimination and rights are two different things.... Discrimination can be achieved thru laws, but that isn't the case here now is it. You know full and well that women have all the rights that men do. You are playing a game of hide the ball and putting words in my mouth. To that I say fuck you. You pick and choose which parts to respond to and act like I never said the rest. Go fuck yourself, people like you are the reason women are leaving feminism in droves. You play the victim and want to be part of an oppressed group. Let me tell you, you aren't. Every time you speak I question all the liberal leaning I have.

I tried being polite and have an actual discussion but you wouldn't have it. Keep moving those goalposts.

Just to be clear what have you been accusing me of this entire time, cause other than sexist I'm baffled.

I've shown my willingness to change my mind, ask Latrin. Latrin responded with actual information that I was unaware of and it changed my mind. I am willing to admit when I am wrong, that is something you seem completely incapable of doing.

I'm going to bed, but just in case the message wasn't clear. Go fuck yourself you pompous, condescending, piece of human garbage.

Dude, you can't have an honest discussion with her. She won't lsiten to a damn thing you say. She basically sticks her fingers in her ears and yell nananananananana. This is the problem with both sides, but increasingly with the left.

[Neveragain]

And there went the olive branch.



You know what you meant, don't try to bullshit me. Typical alt-left persona, throw labels out and then pull back when you're called out on it. Then try to say I am looking for victimhood.

Discrimination and rights are two different things.... Discrimination can be achieved thru laws, but that isn't the case here now is it. You know full and well that women have all the rights that men do. You are playing a game of hide the ball and putting words in my mouth. To that I say fuck you. You pick and choose which parts to respond to and act like I never said the rest. Go fuck yourself, people like you are the reason women are leaving feminism in droves. You play the victim and want to be part of an oppressed group. Let me tell you, you aren't. Every time you speak I question all the liberal leaning I have.

I tried being polite and have an actual discussion but you wouldn't have it. Keep moving those goalposts.

Just to be clear what have you been accusing me of this entire time, cause other than sexist I'm baffled.

I've shown my willingness to change my mind, ask Latrin. Latrin responded with actual information that I was unaware of and it changed my mind. I am willing to admit when I am wrong, that is something you seem completely incapable of doing.

I'm going to bed, but just in case the message wasn't clear. Go fuck yourself you pompous, condescending, piece of human garbage.

Seriously bro, these peoples heads are so full of mush they are impossible to reason with. Have you seen the video of some of the women at this march, screaming oppression then throwing on a burqa. Their fucking insane man.

[Parkbandit]

And look- he finally admits what I've been accusing him of all along.

Your question was loaded, and it was nothing but feigned ignorance.

And by the way, it takes some serious cognitive dissonance to attempt to sequester rights from discrimination. That's just one of the more self serving attempts at plausible deniability I've ever seen.

And no one ever called you sexist. You can crawl out of your victim stance now.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b3/3a/fc/b33afca49f0cee5421b5086b27f13ec1.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

Why did someone change the Last Samurai sergeant to say "my love"? Slash fiction or what? Anyway...
I don't understand their cause. What rights do they think men have that women don't?Well I encourage you to get in touch with them if you're curious about them specifically, but I can say that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You appear to be arguing what rights are promised to them; that is, what is stated in law. I will draw an analogy. Surely we agree that black people in the 1950s were absolutely correct when they declared they did not have the same right to vote as white people, even though the Fifteenth Amendment very clearly promised they would. They (along with others) marched on Washington, the federal government took specific action ranging from legislative to judicial to military against cowards in state governments, and black peoples' rights were (eventually) secured.

It would have been awesome if we as a country could have learned the lesson. There will be always people who want to repress minorities, sure, but it shouldn't take this whole rigmarole every darn time for the rest of us to catch on. We all look down in disgust at the people who stood in the way of Dr. King, at the people who turned away the Jews during the Holocaust, at the bricklayers in Berlin. But this time is different, somehow...? Sheesh.

[drauz]

Why did someone change the Last Samurai sergeant to say "my love"? Slash fiction or what? Anyway...Well I encourage you to get in touch with them if you're curious about them specifically, but I can say that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You appear to be arguing what rights are promised to them; that is, what is stated in law. I will draw an analogy. Surely we agree that black people in the 1950s were absolutely correct when they declared they did not have the same right to vote as white people, even though the Fifteenth Amendment very clearly promised they would. They (along with others) marched on Washington, the federal government took specific action ranging from legislative to judicial to military against cowards in state governments, and black peoples' rights were (eventually) secured.

It would have been awesome if we as a country could have learned the lesson. There will be always people who want to repress minorities, sure, but it shouldn't take this whole rigmarole every darn time for the rest of us to catch on. We all look down in disgust at the people who stood in the way of Dr. King, at the people who turned away the Jews during the Holocaust, at the bricklayers in Berlin. But this time is different, somehow...? Sheesh.

The Library of Congress seems to disagree with your interpretation as only men.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/interactives/declaration-of-independence/equal/index.html


Within the context of the times it is clear that "all men" was a euphemism for "humanity," and thus those people, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, who used the Declaration of Independence to demand equality for African Americans and women seized the historical as well as the moral high ground.

This is how I've always been taught.

[Latrinsorm]

The Library of Congress seems to disagree with your interpretation as only men.This response makes no sense. My entire point was that rights promised by law are not necessarily rights in practice - if I was claiming "all men" meant males only, why wouldn't I just say women don't have the same rights under the law?

[drauz]

This response makes no sense. My entire point was that rights promised by law are not necessarily rights in practice - if I was claiming "all men" meant males only, why wouldn't I just say women don't have the same rights under the law?

It seemed like you said exactly that when asked "What rights do men have that women don't" you said:


but I can say that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Maybe I just interpreted that wrong?

[Neveragain]

The Library of Congress seems to disagree with your interpretation as only men.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/interactives/declaration-of-independence/equal/index.html



This is how I've always been taught.

Yea, since the 60's it always has been a euphemism for humanity/mankind. We could change the wording to that and I highly doubt anyone would give two shits

[Neveragain]

Why did someone change the Last Samurai sergeant to say "my love"? Slash fiction or what? Anyway...Well I encourage you to get in touch with them if you're curious about them specifically, but I can say that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You appear to be arguing what rights are promised to them; that is, what is stated in law. I will draw an analogy. Surely we agree that black people in the 1950s were absolutely correct when they declared they did not have the same right to vote as white people, even though the Fifteenth Amendment very clearly promised they would. They (along with others) marched on Washington, the federal government took specific action ranging from legislative to judicial to military against cowards in state governments, and black peoples' rights were (eventually) secured.

It would have been awesome if we as a country could have learned the lesson. There will be always people who want to repress minorities, sure, but it shouldn't take this whole rigmarole every darn time for the rest of us to catch on. We all look down in disgust at the people who stood in the way of Dr. King, at the people who turned away the Jews during the Holocaust, at the bricklayers in Berlin. But this time is different, somehow...? Sheesh.

I don't even know what you two are going on about at this point, but if the woman's march from last weekend was about women's rights, why did they not allow other women's groups to march with them? Are you going to show this same zeal with the upcoming pro-life women's march?

[Latrinsorm]

It seemed like you said exactly that when asked "What rights do men have that women don't" you said:

Maybe I just interpreted that wrong?Rights can be de jure or de facto. The claim I made is that while women de jure have those same rights, they do not have them in fact. This is the same way that in the 1960s black people were promised the right to vote in the Constitution, but in practice the right to vote was denied them.
I don't even know what you two are going on about at this point, but if the woman's march from last weekend was about women's rights, why did they not allow other women's groups to march with them?"they" had no means for "not allow"ing any group from marching with them.
Are you going to show this same zeal with the upcoming pro-life women's march?If someone asks what the pro-life women's march message is, I promise I will state it with the same clarity as I did here.

[BigWorm]

Jeff Session's appointment is directly affecting my business by making it too risky to do business with any legal marijuana-related businesses in states that allow it.