Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Our next president

neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 10:59:14 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Let's say that there was a 90 year old Islamic gay transgender black feminist woman from Africa that was physically handicapped and that was the democratic candidate for president in the next election and her physical disability did not render her incapable of being president. Assuming that it was legal for her to run and this person toed the line when it came to basic feminist beliefs and didn't do something that ended up with her going to jail (therefor rendering her incapable of being elected) and there was nothing else that rendered her otherwise ineligible for the office of president, is there anything that such a person could say or do that would cause the majority of extremist liberals, feminists, and social justice warriors to NOT vote for our very first 90 year old Islamic gay transgender black feminist handicapped female African president? Even if such words or actions existed to turn the majority of their votes, would it require anything more than calling all of them ageist Islamophobic homophobic transphobic racist antifeminist sexist misogynistic xenophobic ableist sh*tlords in news media and through online harassment and from various racial movements (like black lives matter), social justice warriors, and feminist groups to get the majority vote from those demographics to immediately shift back to voting for such a person? Also is there any reason that people who are not liberal could possibly have to vote for someone else that would not degrade to accusations of ageism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, or ableism from the majority of sjw's or feminist groups or not lead to similar claims against our society as a whole and claims that this is further "proof" of why we supposedly still need feminism, racial movements like blm, and social justice? How many times would similar people have to be elected for president before the majority of the members of racial movements, sjw's, and feminists would stop claiming that the only reason you wouldn't vote for such people has to do with nothing more than either ageism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, or ableism?

Also, if you happen to be a sjw or feminist that believes that being a transgendered woman does not make a person an "official" woman, that such a person still benefits from male privilege, and that hatred of such a person may make you transphobic but does not make you a misogynist, then simply remove the transgendered portion or the parts about misogyny and adjust the rest of the post accordingly in order to answer. Similarly, if anyone finds some small technicality or other piddly stupid uninteresting little detail, please make the necessary adjustments yourself and respond accordingly. This discussion is not about the technicalities that you can pick out of the post, but rather is more about social attitudes on privilege, social justice, feminist theory, racial relations, etc.

In case some people missed the purpose of this topic, it is to discuss the opinion that certain social movements frequently make many things about race, gender, sexual orientation, supposed privilege (or supposed lack thereof), or other supposed prejudice in lieu of actually addressing other policies, opinions, priorities, statistics, facts, or topics. It is frequently assumed that if you disagree with someone who fits into certain social groups, that the reason always or very frequently has more to do with a hatred or prejudice against that group and that most other opinions or thoughts have more to do with justifying your prejudice or not admitting your privilege than that you would ever actually disagree. The prejudice and bigotry from these people against others who do not belong to these social movements leads to an intolerance and an automatic bias against the interpretation of new ideas. This bias creates an automatic and complete misunderstanding that blockades any further discussion. I'm wondering how extreme it would have to be for extreme members of these social movements to gain a different perspective on the intentions of others or, at the very least, make an obvious demonstration of hypocrisy within their own hypotheses in a field that the hypocrisy turns against the movements intentions.
lylefox
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 7:36:18 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 10:59:14 PM, neptune1bond wrote:
Let's say that there was a 90 year old Islamic gay transgender black feminist woman from Africa that was physically handicapped and that was the democratic candidate for president in the next election and her physical disability did not render her incapable of being president. Assuming that it was legal for her to run and this person toed the line when it came to basic feminist beliefs and didn't do something that ended up with her going to jail (therefor rendering her incapable of being elected) and there was nothing else that rendered her otherwise ineligible for the office of president, is there anything that such a person could say or do that would cause the majority of extremist liberals, feminists, and social justice warriors to NOT vote for our very first 90 year old Islamic gay transgender black feminist handicapped female African president? Even if such words or actions existed to turn the majority of their votes, would it require anything more than calling all of them ageist Islamophobic homophobic transphobic racist antifeminist sexist misogynistic xenophobic ableist sh*tlords in news media and through online harassment and from various racial movements (like black lives matter), social justice warriors, and feminist groups to get the majority vote from those demographics to immediately shift back to voting for such a person? Also is there any reason that people who are not liberal could possibly have to vote for someone else that would not degrade to accusations of ageism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, or ableism from the majority of sjw's or feminist groups or not lead to similar claims against our society as a whole and claims that this is further "proof" of why we supposedly still need feminism, racial movements like blm, and social justice? How many times would similar people have to be elected for president before the majority of the members of racial movements, sjw's, and feminists would stop claiming that the only reason you wouldn't vote for such people has to do with nothing more than either ageism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, or ableism?

Also, if you happen to be a sjw or feminist that believes that being a transgendered woman does not make a person an "official" woman, that such a person still benefits from male privilege, and that hatred of such a person may make you transphobic but does not make you a misogynist, then simply remove the transgendered portion or the parts about misogyny and adjust the rest of the post accordingly in order to answer. Similarly, if anyone finds some small technicality or other piddly stupid uninteresting little detail, please make the necessary adjustments yourself and respond accordingly. This discussion is not about the technicalities that you can pick out of the post, but rather is more about social attitudes on privilege, social justice, feminist theory, racial relations, etc.

In case some people missed the purpose of this topic, it is to discuss the opinion that certain social movements frequently make many things about race, gender, sexual orientation, supposed privilege (or supposed lack thereof), or other supposed prejudice in lieu of actually addressing other policies, opinions, priorities, statistics, facts, or topics. It is frequently assumed that if you disagree with someone who fits into certain social groups, that the reason always or very frequently has more to do with a hatred or prejudice against that group and that most other opinions or thoughts have more to do with justifying your prejudice or not admitting your privilege than that you would ever actually disagree. The prejudice and bigotry from these people against others who do not belong to these social movements leads to an intolerance and an automatic bias against the interpretation of new ideas. This bias creates an automatic and complete misunderstanding that blockades any further discussion. I'm wondering how extreme it would have to be for extreme members of these social movements to gain a different perspective on the intentions of others or, at the very least, make an obvious demonstration of hypocrisy within their own hypotheses in a field that the hypocrisy turns against the movements intentions.

Next time, make sure you put a TL:DR at the end.