metalslug

18 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Funny how people who are raging about this know next to nothing about human biology, or even just biology in general.

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.

25 minutes ago, olofscience said:

But then again you think you know better than NASA or NOAA scientists when it comes to climate change, so I guess it's not really that far out of character for you.

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.

13 hours ago, billvon said:

When a new jumper gets their license, starts to jump and gets to about 100 jumps, often they decide they know everything. 

.......

Some skydivers (and some people) get to the point where they realize they don't know everything.  That's an important stage for the more intelligent people out there - to get to the right side of that graph.

 

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.

11 minutes ago, lippy said:

I couldn't find an original of that tweet or any reference to Kim Carson, which makes me wonder which of the following is true:

- Somebody legitimately believes that slowing coal burning in one part of the world will result in never having brush fires again

- Somebody on the right made this up to demonstrate how stupid the 'Greenie libtards' are and you ate it up without the slightest bit of critical thinking.

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. 

On 6/9/2022 at 4:12 AM, billvon said:

Reducing Australia's carbon emissions AND US carbon emissions AND China carbon emissions etc etc. absolutely will reduce flooding and brushfires.

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?"). 

11 minutes ago, jakee said:

Holy goalpost change batman! What educators are pushing it through schools and what exactly are they pushing?

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. 

2 hours ago, jakee said:

And how is it a part of the original literature when it was put together 30 years after the beginnings of CRT?

?? 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'.

2 hours ago, jakee said:

The people studying it are supposed to be lawyers.

Tell that to the educators pushing it through schools.

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Is maths bad because it's taught by mathematicians, not historians?

Non sequitur.  My statement that you replied you stands.

3 hours ago, olofscience said:

So which bit of this do you think is bad?

Nothing. I think my statement that you're replying to was fine in all respects.

5 minutes ago, billvon said:

Which CRT courses did you take?

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?

24 minutes ago, billvon said:

Again, this is also the argument against teaching Holocaust studies.  Why make Jewish children hate German children?  Wouldn't not knowing be better for them, and let them get over their old hate?

Answer - no.

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.

29 minutes ago, lippy said:

Can you provide a link to this mythical evil CRT Bible or is it a fabrication of the right used to keep the uneducated angry?

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.

31 minutes ago, lippy said:

WHAT?????

Yup; children and adolescents respectfully interacting within multicultural communities,  that's actually 'a thing'. Unfortunate if you experienced it differently.

On 6/14/2022 at 5:39 AM, billvon said:

There is.  But it's not called that - it's called Holocaust studies.

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. 

On 6/14/2022 at 5:39 AM, billvon said:

Why do they do this?  Because by minimizing or denying the Holocaust they can act against Jews more freely.  

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?

On 6/12/2022 at 4:37 AM, billvon said:

He has Jewish roots, and thus the history of Judaism is both nuanced and complex. ..........But black people are just plain nuts if they think we should care about their history of oppression.  Who cares?  Not me!  I'm not racist so there's no racism, and if black people think there is, they are just greedy takers.  Inner city youths.  No fathers.  Welfare queens.  And we should cancel CRT, because dredging up the history of racism will just foster division.

 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.

1 minute ago, Stumpy said:

 Even oil and gas companies are now admitting that human driven climate change is a thing. He is in a very small population that hasn't even evolved that far yet.

Quote

Can you actually refute the science argument that he makes ?

I'm correct then. You have nothing.

34 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

I wouldn't place too much weight on anything he says. His income is literally dependent on saying this sort of stuff.

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.

3 hours ago, jakee said:

Right, but as we’ve established several times you don’t even know what ‘woke’ means despite being angry about it yourself. Hence the division that you feel over wokeness hasn’t been instigated by woke people, it’s been instigated by the people who’ve told you to be angry over wokeness.

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

6 hours ago, billvon said:

Coming from the guy who spent several posts attacking Biden's family in another thread - that's pretty funny.

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.

25 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Are you grasping for something randomly unrelated to have a go at Musk because he's discarded a party who's politics has changed? 

8 minutes ago, ryoder said:

I am talking about: .....

All these are the result of Musk's ego-driven mismanagement of the "autopilot" project.

You could have just answered 'Yes'.

8 hours ago, ryoder said:

Trailer for a 1h15m documentary NYT did with FX. Available on Hulu. I just watched a bootleg copy someone uploaded to Youtube, but it is gone now. Topic is Tesla's half-assed "autopilot".

?? 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.

8 hours ago, jakee said:

It's really very sad that you would take this view for partisan reasons. 

The Buffalo shooter admits straight up that a lot of what he was writing and saying was for 'memes and shitposting' so really almost any part of it could be true or untrue, and it certainly contains deliberate attempts to feed the press a false narrative. The only thing we can really judge to be true is what is supported by his actions. Did he really specifically and intentionally kill a bunch of black people because he was anti-corporatist? No. Did he kill them because he didn't like conservatism? No. Did he kill them because the media is full of Jews? No, but that's edging closer.

He killed a bunch of black people because he was a racist who was incenced by racist rhetoric with a strong focus on replacement theory. That's really the only bit of the manifesto we know is true. He was really, really into replacement theory which is not only a right wing talking point, it is very specifically a Republican talking point. It is pushed by Republican politicians and Republican media commentators to get people fired up against the Democrat party and their policies. Well, this guy was fired up.

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.

16 hours ago, billvon said:

He believes in replacement theory, a far-right white supremacist theory that claims that white "traitors" are working to replace white Christian society with minorites and Muslims.  

?? 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? 

16 hours ago, billvon said:

 Tucker Carlson: "In order to win and maintain power, Democrats plan to change the population of the country."  

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.

6 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Or provide the quotes from the manifesto where racism and antisemitic ideology is left of center.You and Brent have allot in common.

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?

On 5/17/2022 at 3:19 AM, billvon said:

Right wing extremists, making America great again, one shooting at at time.

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 ? ...

20 minutes ago, billvon said:

Exactly.  He was very up on it initially, since his mentor Putin was prosecuting it.

Then he saw the poll numbers, and then, as Skydekker said, "told the viewer what he wants to hear."  If all republicans started supporting Putin he'd be singing his praises in a heartbeat again.

You're sorta proving Skydekker's point here.

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.

42 minutes ago, billvon said:

"told the viewer what he wants to hear." 

 Name me one prominent US politician who doesn't do that?  The very nature of politics is popularity, else they never become prominent.

14 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Trump has a long history of either saying what the last person told him, or what he thinks the listener wants to hear. So he should be judged on the actions he has taken and the actual outcomes of his words. Not on what he might have said to Piers Morgan that one time.

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.