Sorry. This is the world we live in. I too would like to know the way back to a place where people can easily define the differences between a man and a woman.
6 examples of a trans person also being a sex pest doesn’t mean that all of them are, and it certainly doesn’t mean that granting legal protection and freedom to transgender people causes women to get assaulted/harassed by them. Do you know how many examples of cis men being sexual predators we could find in just a few minutes of googling things like “pastor arrested” or “republican senator arrested”. Does that mean we should start making it illegal for people to identify as republicans in public? should we make it illegal for the clergy to get anywhere near children? Maybe we should, but you won’t see any of these “wont somebody please think of the children” types calling for either of those, even though they’re clearly bigger threats statistically.
6 examples of a trans person also being a sex pest doesn’t mean that all of them are
I agree.
But there are plenty more than the 6 covered in this video... Not regarding assaults, but regarding general sexual behavior towards minors, see public nudity at pride parades, "drag shows for kids", kids themselves featured in drag shows, etc. Bizarro world, indeed...
certainly doesn’t mean that granting legal protection and freedom to transgender people causes women to get assaulted/harassed by them.
I don't believe anyone implied that. The video implied that allowing trans people into whichever bathroom they choose to enter was considered "safe" but this doesn't constitute "legal protection and freedoms".
Trans people, in the US, have just as many "legal protections and freedoms" as any other normal person. The aspect of this discussion where the matter at hand becomes controversial is that you might think men pretending to be women should be allowed into legally protected spaces that are specifically for women, whereas anyone with a moral compass would see that this ideology is fundamentally flawed.
I don't want you to think that I am not empathetic to the complexity of the situation. I think it is very important to consider our options moving forward... I've asked this question a few times in other discussions but I'm always willing to hear a fresh take on it.
Men and women are segregated for specific reasons regarding bathrooms and locker rooms. So when we have a group of people which can freely transverse these spaces, there is reasonable concern. What needs to happen to ensure that all persons are free and comfortable in their public spaces? Should we be erecting new public facilities that cater specifically to trans people? Do we need separate spaces for both trans men and trans women? Similarly, should we also make spaces for gay persons?
That’s not what affirmative action is you cretin. This situation is not even remotely comparable. If you think it is then you’re either a literal child or just a full on bird-brained simpleton (or possibly both).
Instead of seeking to lose a debate through name-calling, I encourage you to focus on constructive techniques that can foster a healthy discussion and lead to personal growth and learning.
It's called satire... If you cannot comprehend the joke, I hope God has blessed you in some other important way. Have a great day!
This isn’t a debate. That person in the video is just a moron, as is everyone who thinks the video makes any kind of remotely valid point.
“iT’s SaTiRe” isn’t the automatic win card that you seem to think it is. The video is making a joke, but in that joke it’s attempting so say something (you know this because you referenced it in the title and caption of this post) — the thing that it’s saying is just stupid and wrong because it’s a false equivalency and a complete misunderstanding of the topic it’s taking about.
If someone proposes an argument and another person tries to counter the proposed argument with the goal being to critically analyze the topic and challenge a position, the conversation becomes a "debate". Regardless of if the setting is formal or not. If you'd prefer to not call the conversation a debate, that's fine, Libs are well known for trying to redefine words to fit their narrative and the definition of debate itself varies depending on which source you query...
Since this isn't a formal debate and you were clear that you didn't think it's a debate at all, why then would you imply that the conversation must have a winner or a loser? Seems contradictory. I certainly didn't tell you that I won because I pointed out something that was seemingly obvious to everyone, besides yourself.
You seem generally confused as you lack the capacity to analyze a simple conversation. If the only thoughts you are capable of explaining are calling people names because you disagree with their position, I doubt you should be anywhere near an entertainment medium and more focused on furthering your education. Maybe then you might be able to comprehend the joke and attack it's position and validity.
I truly hope you have a brighter future ahead of you. Best wishes.
For anyone viewing this comment thread, be aware that the tactic being used here is a common tactic among disingenuous and bad faith actors.
The tactic is to first make a volley that is divisive and controversial, usually lacking in respectful tone or tact with how brazenly illogical it is. Then once engaged with at the appropriate level (calling bullshit what it is), retreats into appeals for civility and decorum as it pertains to rational debate.
The subject being promoted here is not rational, the consequences are not beneficial to society at large, and this person only wants to cling to civility when it benefits him to do so, in order to appear to be a sympathetic victim in comparison to the other person in the dialogue.
Don't fall for this transparent ruse. Learn to identify this pattern. @Unhappily_Coerced has no intention of advancing a real debate.
SCOTUS disagrees and I am so pleased that years of blatant racism is being reversed regarding college admissions. Cannot wait to see what's next!
Many people are saying that my position is wrong, but nobody has yet to try and explain why they think so. Instead we have "bait-and-switched," "reverse-racism," "microaggressions", "bad faith actors," "bird-brained simpleton," etc... It's both hilarious and sad that none of you can provide reinforcement for your positions.
Here's mine: Racism is discrimination by an institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. Literally affirmative action and college admissions. But the libs and leftys will deny this to the death without ever trying to back it up. Why is that?
The subject being promoted here is not rational, the consequences are not beneficial to society at large, and this person only wants to cling to civility when it benefits him to do so, in order to appear to be a sympathetic victim in comparison to the other person in the dialogue.
I couldn't care less how many names the members of m/politics call me. It's honestly hilarious how fresh this site is yet how much of an echo chamber it has already become. If you want to be m/lib-scum or m/donkey-politics... I'd totally get that, I wouldn't support it, but I'd recognize that at least you tried. Instead, you're m/politics, so you should surely expect that both sides of current arguments would be present. I was surprised that this assumption was false.
So, you get what ask for.
On another note, I'm not attempting to "appear as a victim," we have enough leftys and libs doing that on a daily basis, I certainly wouldn't want to come off as soft headed or cowardice as that lot. I'm simply calling out the bullshit as I see it. I'm certainly not claiming I'm innocent of bullshitting and name calling.
Was I wrong? Why not instead of just spewing malarkey you try and bolster your position on the matter? Instead we get "mickey mouse attempt," "reverse racism," and "full blown trite"... How is any of that useful to the discussion at hand? It isn't. If you want to be taken seriously, redeem yourself and give it a go.
Shapiro has never outwitted anyone ever. Well maybe except for himself. I’ll never understand people’s fascination with him. Or desire to associate with him or what he calls thought.
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they lack values. When it comes to fascists in America it’s honestly often quite the opposite. They disagree based on intense values shared with many other races classes etc.
And the fact that American Conservatives so often claim to be color blind etc. All while perpetuating systems with disparately racial outcomes. Only proves their dishonesty.
There are no cultural dynamics that contribute to Shapiro’s behavior. And don’t get me wrong I’m not saying that he has no values. They just don’t extend much beyond self interest and personal wealth and power. He has no concern for anyone else. And his seeming lack of concern for programs with racial disparities outside of the ones that might impact him personally or be abused to him personally proves it.
Black Lives Matter, too. Who could be against this? And Ben Shapiro has terrible opinions about minorities and the LGBT community. He is not a good person. And he is not quick witted.
Black Lives Matter, too. Who could be against this?
All lives should be treated as equals. "Social equity" is not equality. Since when is charity dignifying for the recipient?
Ben Shapiro has terrible opinions about minorities and the LGBT
Shapiro has stated multiple times that he would rather a child have two gay parents over being an orphan. I won't deny that some of his takes are a bit on the theocratic side. But he isn't theocratic, he recognizes that while his religious beliefs do influence his perspectives, not everyone should be coerced to live the way which he chooses to live.
He is not a good person
Clearly, in an echo chamber of leftys and libs, my opinion on Shapiro will not be recognized as the general consensus. However, it's best to keep a perspective that is open minded when listening to opinions with which you might disagree, instead of just attempting to nullify everything that is said simply because you dislike a particular person.
And he is not quick witted.
It is quite clear that many people recognize him as a well spoken and worthy debate opponent. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, that opinion is not commonly recognized, as many people seek debates with him.
Shapiro relies almost solely on the Gish Gallop debate technique:
The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.
Having too many shitty arguments for any one person to refute is not how I'd describe "outwitting" someone.
Shapiro is known for his fast-paced and articulate speaking style. He possesses a strong command of language, which enables him to present his arguments clearly and succinctly.
Shapiro is well-versed in a wide range of topics, including politics, economics, philosophy, and social issues. He often extensively prepares for debates by researching the subject matter, gathering relevant data, and constructing persuasive arguments.
Shapiro is known for his confident and assertive demeanor during debates. He is not afraid to challenge opposing views and presenting his own perspective.
Shapiro actively seeks out debate opportunities and is open to engaging with individuals who hold opposing views. His willingness to participate in discussions and defend his ideas contributes to his reputation as a debater.
You'd be more accurate if you stated that you have trouble following Shaprio's debate style as it is quite clear that many people recognize him as a well spoken and worthy debate opponent. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, that opinion is not commonly recognized, as many people seek debates with him.
Clearly, in an echo chamber of leftys and libs, my opinion on Shapiro's debate style will not be recognized as the general consensus. However, it's best to keep a perspective that is open minded when listening to opinions with which you might disagree, instead of just attempting to nullify everything that is said simply because you dislike a particular person.
Nothing I say can make you see people of color as worth dignity, so I don't care to expend the energy to try to convince you.
Now you're implying that I'm racist while I'm clearly advocating for anti-racist policies... It's certainly true that the leftys don't get much smarter than this prime example.
Since when is charity dignifying for the recipient?
I appreciate what little insight you've provided and I hope you are more open to meaningful conversations in the future. Best wishes to you, my friend.
I went to reddit a little while ago to check on the status of my favored reddit app, and past the top 15 or so posts is the same shit I saw days ago. New content there has seriously dropped off.
It’s interesting to see that the discussion about AI (which the writer and actors strikes are based on) have an impact on workers in the US.
We hopefully experience the strengthening of unions and work reforms. Ideally, this will be a general movement bringing back policies that have been teared down since Regean.
It’s not ONLY about AI though. It’s one amongst many issues, such as being paid next to nothing in residuals for being in wildly successful streaming shows, having no job security and generally being at the mercy of cruel and capricious bosses who decide their future on a whim and are even capable of enacting de facto blacklists if they get pissed off.
Perhaps they are referencing the writer strike in the 2000. It killed a lot of good shows. I think the biggest one was lost. Great first two seasons, then it became nonsense.
youtu.be
Oldest