metalslug

Agreed. The woke mob have been raging to redefine words since they made this a social issue and have been debunked earlier in this thread already. More hot air comments from someone who skipped their homework. Quite recently I even gave credit to a NASA scientist for their predictions. ...but you've already demonstrated that you don't follow thread topics here.

Your thesis above has zero relevance to understanding a woman by definition, in as much as it's also completely superfluous to understanding skydiving by definition. Do you find yourself struggling with the above learning curves for every noun that you learn? .. porcupines, teacups, pineapples... ? The 'gender fluid' argument reduces the term 'woman' (or 'man') from being a noun to being an adjective; "I feel womanly." and by that logic the Matt Walsh argument appears; "My preferred adjectives are 'handsome and brilliant' and I'll take offence if others don't recognise and address me as such." I expect you're also in denial that 'alternate' definitions of a woman are very much a fringe opinion. Barely a decade ago this subject thread would never have existed because the definition has been largely undisputed for millennia. Is this because human biology has evolved over the last decade? Nope, only the subject activism. You seem to be willing to forgo scientific and grammatical consensus on this issue, or even consensus within the Lgbtqi+ communities that you like to believe you're advocating for. This seems inconsistent with your advocacy on other subjects.

I'll spare you a "Let me Google it for you", it's here . About 3 posts down. I had first thought it was satire myself, it got 11 'laughs', but checking the comments and the poster's rebuttals seems to confirm they were laughing at the post, not with it. A curious use of your word 'libtards' though. Up until recently in Australia, the center-right Prime Minister was leader of the Liberal Party.

Partial blackouts/brownouts now impacting parts of Australia, a country with some of the largest energy resources under their feet and this (below) is an indication of the emerging electorate in a country that contributes 1% to global emissions. I look forward to seeing this person protesting at the Chinese embassy ("wait.. what?").

Are you genuinely still unaware that there's a push (even an existing practice) of teaching CRT in US schools? You've no idea why bill compared CRT to Holocaust studies? 51 pages into this thread and yourself and Olof are still at the starting blocks asking old questions about CRT? If that's where you are then I can't engage with you further as you're either trolling or demonstrating an abject inability to follow the thread (and even some individual posts), neither of which I have patience for.

?? Carefully read my part that you quoted, observing the punctuation too. You might realise that I made two separate literature references in that statement; the original work and the 'concise'. Tell that to the educators pushing it through schools. Non sequitur. My statement that you replied you stands. Nothing. I think my statement that you're replying to was fine in all respects.

Zero. I didn't take courses on Lord of the Rings either, although it was a good read. Taking courses is not a requirement for knowing the nature of the authors and the content. Which 'Great Replacement Theory' courses did you take?

Holocaust studies, as I experienced them, were literature written by historians taught as history. The authors of CRT are largely activists and lawyers. The message is different.

The clearest evidence yet that you've never read it. The original work was not a stand-alone publication. Do you feel angry? If you need it concise, try this. Yup; children and adolescents respectfully interacting within multicultural communities, that's actually 'a thing'. Unfortunate if you experienced it differently.

A disgraceful statement. Holocaust studies are not a theory and to attempt to compare that to CRT is probably deeply insulting to the Jewish community. CRT, if you've ever read more than a few lines of the original literature, is significantly more skewed than a mere recounting of history. How does that statement make any sense (without a tinfoil hat)? Alex Jones has made disgraceful statements but it's absurd to believe that traits of either racism or anti-Semitism are defined by an individual's low awareness of history. By your logic there can be no such thing as a racist or anti-Semitic historian. Would you not find it plausible that children and adolescents, having a relatively low awareness of history, can respectfully interact within multicultural communities... until they learn a particular flavour of history designed to re-introduce old hate?

If there were a Critical Anti-Semitism Theory being pushed through schools or a JLM movement then maybe you'd have a stronger whataboutism argument here. I have yet to meet a Jewish person who wears their oppression on their sleeve with the same kind of defeatist attitude and present day blamestorming that CRT encourages.

I'm correct then. You have nothing.

How is this different from alarmists Mike Cannon-Brookes and Simon Holmes a Court ? How would it make sense for Plimer to not be financially invested in something he believes in? Can you actually refute the science argument that he makes ? Err.. no, you have nothing there. You probably also think that reducing Australia's 1% (of global) carbon emissions will reduce it's bushfires and east coast flooding.

Australia too While I'll be fair here and not blame everything on the net-zero goal, it certainly hasn't been helpful that the governments (past and present) have been disparaging to the coal industry, blocking many new coal and gas projects, and now expect cooperation. Also, curiously, at least one scientist reckons Australia is already at net zero and even waggishly suggested that Australia should bill other countries for scrubbing their emissions.

..and yet with asinine statements like that you've yet again demonstrated absolutely fsckall knowledge of the subject controversy yourself. Next player, please...

Yet another lie from you. I attacked the deliberate concealment of the laptop story. Quote me where I directly attacked Biden's family as individuals. Even with that aside, are you really equating a family (some of whom are minors) of a man who is not in office or politics with the son of a sitting president? Gee, that's big of you.

I agree with BillyVance from another recent thread in that I believe the left has gone further left and the right further right (equal and opposite reaction?). I can't recall politics being quite as divisive and toxic as present day and that's reflected right here in this forum too comparable over several years. I think the topics of 'woke' and climate change have been fundamentally divisive with people landing firmly on either side of the issue with little neutrality. As both of these concepts were initiated from the left, I think the political right has asserted reaction rather than action. Globally also; the recent outcome of the Australian federal election saw the (previously) ruling party, while attempting to pander to both left and right sides on climate change issues, ultimately abandoned to some degree by both. The recent French elections; a surge in 'right' support (albeit not a win) at a time when the two main parties had very different ideologies. One might assume that the ruling party had moved too far left for some voter's liking.

You could have just answered 'Yes'.

?? What is the relevance of that to the OP? Are you grasping for something randomly unrelated to have a go at Musk because he's discarded a party who's politics has changed? I personally dislike vehicle 'autopilots' because I genuinely enjoy driving myself, although I'm not aware of who currently has a better autopilot (in it's class) than his. Every technology, including autopilots, needs an evolution of trial and failure. One might easily say that early aviation autopilots were half-assed. In some respects they still are, hence we still have pilots. You might as well go low and have a go at his family next.... Ah, nevermind, SkyDekker beat you to it. Classy all around.

My comment would never even have been made if it were not for bill's partisan lie of "Right wing extremists, making America great again, one shooting at at time." as though to discount that left-wing (extremist) shootings also exist. I don't disagree with much of what you have written there, but I'd still maintain that the 'replacement theory' in mainstream Republican discussion is politically orientated and not specifically a race issue which makes it different from Le Grand Remplacement as endorsed by extremists from which the term was borrowed. The left chooses to conflate them. The US is not importing black people, the current 'replacement' influx are largely Hispanics, who were not targeted in this attack. Consider a hypothetical geography in which the USA shared a border with, for example, Russia or some 'right-leaning' nation and allowed swathes to enter illegally and eventually apply for citizenship. You don't suppose the D's would have something to say about that? ..and might feel even further incensed if the R's accused them of xenophobia (or worse) if they did ? The shooter had self-identified as being left of center and, whether he is or not, it is somewhat curious that the terminology of self-identification is something the lefties here are not endorsing as gospel, which they are happy to do in other threads.

?? Sympathetic to Christians? You didn't find it conspicuous in the quote that I provided (similar to every other mention in his manifesto) that 'god' is always written lower-case? A hallmark of the faithful? Tucker Carlson is a bit of an ass for various reasons, I concede that much, although it's not totally unthinkable to criticize government facilitation of massive illegal immigration of people (of any ethnicity) who are more likely to vote D in future elections as gratitude. Fox News is indeed criticised in Gendron's manifesto as complicit in this imagined conspiracy. What the left like to do here however is conflate that issue with the truly racist, but notably different, French Nationalist Grand Remplacement theory because it makes for a good smear deflection. I grant you this much however; large parts of his manifesto are a word-salad rant of a disturbed mind and if he is found to be mentally ill then his claims of any political affiliation, right or left, will be less relevant.

Well that's the ignorance that some lefties have, isn't it ? ..believing that both racism and anti-semitism are exclusively right wing. Even the other lefties here can educate you on that misconception. Back to Gendron; You asked for quotes from his manifest; “Not a thing has been conserved other than corporate profits and the ever increasing wealth of the 1% that exploit the people for their own benefit. Conservatism is dead. Thank god. ..... I fall in the middle of the mild, moderate authoritarian left category, and I would prefer to be called a populist... Call me an ethno-nationalist eco-fascist national socialist if you want, I wouldn't disagree with you." Sounds right-wing to you?

Right wing, eh? The 'manifesto' of the Buffalo shooter is left of center. I could list citations and quotes but I'm sure you'll find the relevant info. Which shooting was before that one? Could it have been Frank James? Was his politics left or right ? ...

If that's true then it also disproves the nonsense narrative in this forum that 'all conservatives support Putin'. You've now conceded that in your comment above. Either they don't support Putin, or Trump does not pander to his supporters. Both can't be true. Trump didn't seem to mind recommending the vaccine to his supporters, either by being too 'slow' to realize the blowback he would get, or by actually placing principle above policy. I know which one you'll pick. Name me one prominent US politician who doesn't do that? The very nature of politics is popularity, else they never become prominent.

Such as perhaps... recommending the covid vaccine to his own supporters? ..and somehow being clairvoyantly aware of exactly which 'listeners' would watch (or listen) a publicly available TV interview? The actual facts are that he hasn't said a single positive thing about the invasion since it's second week and has indeed since condemned the invasion at least three separate times in separate interviews or speeches since February. Hence.. these days. Trump has also repeatedly harped on about how 'it would never have happened on his watch' and although his claim is utterly absurd it is also reflective of sentiment that he did not want the invasion to happen. By denying such obvious facts; your own comments are really more reflective of liberals who are so drunk on lefty dogma that they're no longer capable of objective analysis resulting in the kind of illogical response you've provided. It's like the lefty equivalent of The Hundredth Monkey.