*sigh* Yes, they are. The protected class is, for example, race, not "anything but white". If you're attacked because of your race, you are the victim of hate speech as surely as if you were black.
There's a lot of political, sociological and cultural reasons why that might be treated differently b y the world at large but the definitions do not say "but hey, if you're in a majority it's fair game". Ditto everything else. If a group of gay guys attack you because you're with your girlfriend, that's also a hate crime, it's just far, far less likely to happen than it would to a gay guy out with his boyfriend.
"Congratulations on calling yourself an idiot."
You're really struggling with the English language, aren't you? I said that if you disagree with the idea that protections apply equally to all races, you might be an idiot. You'll notice that this therefore makes my position the exact opposite of the one I called out.
"The simple fact is; The Democrats are flooding the wage pool with low wage earners."
What does that have to do with the statement I was referring to?
"It won't help the 92 million or so Americans that are leaving the workforce"
That's an incredible claim, and reeks of certain types of false propaganda I've encountered before. Hence my request for a citation.
"It's a fact. No one denies it, no one disputes it."
Then, you need to provide the evidence, which should be very easy if there's no dissenting voices (insanely unlikely). Looking at the above, when such figures are thrown around, it's usually from people lying with statistics - either they count people who are retired, etc. as if they're part of the workforce, or they're cherry-picking between different types of employment reports to try to pretend the figures are higher.
This is especially true at this moment in time, because people are trying to fool the less-informed into thinking that the current natural reduction in workforce participation (mainly due to the retirement of baby boomers) have something to do with current government policies rather than a statistical anomaly that's perfectly expected.
Once you've cited that, you then have to cite your other claim - this this is directly because of one single party's policies. You're claiming that a single party is responsible for flooding the market with immigrants, at a time when deportations have increased and the opposing party holds congress (s must be involved in some way with most decisions). That's not a claim that can be taken at face value.
"The Democrats are now the party of big business and the super rich"
...and the Republicans are not? At least the Democrats aren't trying to push anti-gay, racist, misogynist, bible-bashing policies and other regressive policies in addition to that.
That's the other problem - supporting Democrats in the current political climate doesn't mean that you approve of all of the Democrats' policies. It just means you recognise that the Republicans' ideas are worse. Give me a choice between a broken leg and having both of my arms cut off and I'll gladly take the broken leg. That doesn't mean I'm pro-broken leg.
"To me the problem is that phrases like "hate speech" can be used to label political speech that you disagree with."
Words can be misused in all sorts of ways. That doesn't mean that the usage by people who use them correctly should be rejected.
"In a war it might be acceptable because it is cearly only for a limited time"
Well, here's the problem. The "war on terror" is so loosely defined that the US is considered to be in a constant state of war. Terrorism is never going away completely, just as it didn't suddenly start when the WTC came down.
"When such measures are implemented in peacetime (eg McCarthyism) then it does tend to result in injustice."
Here's the thing - it still injustice in wartime. It's acceptable injustice according to the rules of engagement, but the person being murdered, imprisoned or otherwise abused don't really care whether it's because other people decided to fight each other.
"I don't know where you get the idea that I am a right winger from"
You used right-wing echo chambers as your citations, for a start. Why do that instead of neutral or primary sources if you don't agree with and read those sites?
"It seems to me that the left"
You also seem to spend a lot of time attacking "the left", which would be unusual for someone on that side of the spectrum to do. It wouldn't be unusual for a right-winger who has been conditioned to paint everything he dislikes as "leftist", however. I do apologise if the assumptions I've made based on the evidence you've provided were incorrect.
"To equate Trump's proposed temporary muslim ban with the nazis is pretty much a stretch."
Not at all - you just run find and replace on his comments to replace words like "Muslim" or "refugee" with "Jew" and you pretty much have Hitler's rhetoric repeated verbatim. You also have to remember that even Hitler didn't start out full Hitler. He started small then built to the holocaust over time. I don't trust Trump's word that this would be anything like temporary. I'd fully expect escalation and atrocities - perhaps not by him personally, but he has some dangerous supporters.
"It seems to me that the left has held its nose in the face of the extreme right wing ideas that exist within islam on the grounds that it wants the muslim vote."
Extreme right-wing ideas exist in all religions. There are millions of Muslims who do not adhere to those ideas, so it's a good idea not to pretend they do if you wish for their support or cooperation. Like most religions, there are massive differences in belief, many internal battles (most victims of Islamic violence are also Muslim) and the majority of followers are moderates.
"ON issues like womens rights and homosexuality"
.... there are numerous "Christian" groups in the US who are jealous of theocracies who can treat those people as second class citizens without bleeding heart liberals stopping them. I won't paint everyone in that religion as if they agree with them, however.
"Other political figures seem to be in a fantasy land that denies the reality of islamic history"
Such as? I'll be intrigued as to why you think that other politicians aren't attempting to deal with the issues. I am, however, talking about real issues and not the "every Muslim wants to kill us!" hysteria. I'm also talking about real solutions, and Trump has not only failed to offer any such thing, his dangerous rhetoric plays right into the hands of extremists who wish to believe that there's a holy war between Islam and the West.
It's also wrong to attack someone for being white, straight, male, etc. It's wrong to discriminate against or attack someone based on any of those attributes, whether that person happens to be in a majority demographic or not.
It would be nice to have some option on the poll like "I don't think they're ridiculous" or "I agree with Marsha". It would just be interesting to see if anyone who actually agrees such idiocy does read sites like this one (although I'll guess most such votes would be trolling with their answer).
I'm not sure about Steam, but it's also worth noting that GoG is currently giving away Shadow Warrior Classic for free. Again, easy promotion - they've realised they can leverage the original for sales by introducing new gamers / reminding old customers of that game for no charge to those customers and little real outlay for the developer. Some less enlightened folk would be worrying about cannibalising sales while trying to impose DRM.
"if you bothered to look at the links within the Breitbart you would see where they got their evidence from"
I have enough experience with that cesspool to know that there's often no evidence at all, and what there is can often be distorted, re-edited and outright lied about. If the evidence is so clear, there must be primary sources you can link to rather than known con artists.
"The nature of your own comments on this issue shows that "
Well, the nature of your comments show that you take the word of openly biased, often made-up, sources as truth and that you regularly make shit up about other people based on short interactions.
But, hey, whatever reinforces your world view, I suppose.
"Oh, so it's OK to disparage or intimidate some people, but not others"
Yes. It's bad to attack someone based on gender, sexuality, race, disability and other factors they cannot control*. It's not bad to attack someone because they've chosen to be an asshole or became a klan member or something similar within their choice and control. If they don't like being marginalised, they can always stop being a twat. You can ban a Korean guy from your store because he abused the staff, for example, but you can't ban him because you don't like asians.
* Yeah, religion is the exception to that rule, and it's arguable as to whether it belongs depending on your point of view.
For you to come back with "all lives matter" as a reaction to "black lives matter", you need to have completely misunderstood the original phrase. Otherwise it makes no sense, as the phrase means the same as the original is intended to mean.
It could be ignorance, but it's also likely to be that the person has taken offense to the idea that black lives are equally valuable. Not everyone who uses that phrase is racist, but they generally don't seem to be people who agree on equality.
Yes. Or, at least some things that need to be backed with reliable citations (the figure for the number of people out of work, for example. Really, 1/3 of the population is able and willing to work but unable to find a job and you're not just using the old trick of including disabled, students, the retired, etc?)
Oh yeah, "the media" just went along but the guy running an openly biased "finance" blog knows the truth about elections!
We won't even start with the major differences between primaries and elections and why fraud in one doesn't mean it will be even attempted in the other. I'll just start with asking why you believe an anonymous blogger named after a fictional schizophrenic hallucination has the answers and isn't biased in the same way as major sources.
Exactly. There bullshit artists on all sides, and it's useful to recognise them. Not just to avoid them as sources, but to know that people who only consume from those sources aren't addressing objective reality. If those liars tend to congregate toward one part of the political spectrum, that's not the fault of the person observing that they're full of shit.
"Wanting to prevent terrorists from coming here is a non-hateful reason to implement such a policy"
It's also reactionary, ineffective and causes far more problems than the one it's meant to defend against. The logistic alone are incredible, and that's even without considering all the implications (how do you tell the peaceful Muslims from the terrorists if not based on race or religion. What do you do about the millions of Muslim US citizens? Etc.)
Hate and fear tend to be the easy explanations for why such a wooly and impractical idea seem to be the answers provided, but I accept that there may be other reasons.
"you have to allow the other side to speak. Preferably without insulting them all first."
I've allowed them to speak, and it's their own words I'm criticising.
"Facebook can do what it likes, but it seems like a weird place to go overboard with censorship, since you can just unfriend anyone who crosses whatever line YOU draw"
On your personal feed, sure. But letting this stuff fly around unchecked is a great way to lose users, and therefore revenue, for Facebook. Normal users tend to be extremely bad at fine-tuning their settings to only see what they wish to see, and they often jump ship completely rather than learn - so Facebook step in to control things globally. This is about advertising dollars, not making a personal stand on an issue.
"even if what they advocate is, in my view, destructive"
Assuming you're on the pro-life side of things as you appear, banning abortions completely is also destructive, especially if you're getting rid of sex education, easy access birth control and the other things that usually get culled as collateral damage. It's one of the many issues where moderation is key, the extremists will never get anywhere near what they want on either side. But, I've only seen one side threatening (or carrying out) deadly violence on people visiting a clinic, for example (even ones not visting for any reason related to abortion).
One thing right-wingers really need to learn is that saying "he did it first!" like a little child does not absolve their candidate of their own words and actions. Trump is still a despicable human being with toxic rhetoric and terrible ideas even if he's not being original about them.
I'll happily say that people who did bad things before the Nazis were also wrong to do them. But, I'm not the one supporting someone stating that he'll repeat those actions in the modern day.
"So, everyone shares a value or two with Hitler, but don't let me stop you from going all Godwin on us here."
Godwin's Law is a neat little observation but it doesn't apply everywhere. For example, when someone literally repeats things that Hitler said and did, it's not Godwinning an argument to note that they are literally acting like Hitler.
"it is factually true that saying anything against the left sparks and automatic and sycophantic response to call someone a racist"
So you say, but "because I said so you're stupid if you don't see things exactly the same way" isn't really something we can build a discussion upon. Not to mention you haven't defined "the left" so it's impossible to even see your parameters even if you do take the simpleton's route of pretending everything has to be "left" or "right".
"Muslim is a religion, and when people disparage that religion people call it racism anyways"
Very few people are attacking white, asian or black Muslims, yet Sikhs have been attacked because morons can't tell the difference. There might be a racial element there somehow.
"You going to call FDR Hitler too?"
If I was there at the time to call him out on such a route? Perhaps. But, discrimination on the basis of national heritage during an active war situation and disc
"That said, we should probably stop going Godwin when so many of us have already played our own parts of Hitler in our politics."
Define "us". Even ignoring things like the southern strategy that caused party affiliations to eventually flip (Democrats in FDR's time were the conservatives), very few people having this discussion were around at that time. Almost nobody voting against Trump today would have been voting for FDR, so it's misleading to pretend that they would agree with people who did these things in the past. Plus, we have the benefit of hindsight and knowledge of what the Nazis were actually doing in their camps, which people of that war did not.
"many on the so called the left have chosen to ally themselves with groups whose ideas are themselves "literally the same as the ones used in pre-WWII Nazi Germany""
Whereas Trump has, for example, advocated for forcing Muslims to carry special IDs to make sure they're easily recognised. You know, exactly like the Nazis did with the Jews, gays, gypsies, communists and others they wanted to exterminate.