I agree that it's human nature and always will be. But that doesn't mean it's ok or that we should shrug and say oh well. It means that we need to always be guarding against it and condemning it when it happens. There are times in history where ideological violence has gotten way out of hand, and i believe we can avoid that if we try. And if we instead encourage it then we will have another cultural revolution or holocaust like in China or Russia or Germany.
Those specific women said that they wouldn't have got where they are without affirmative action. He interpreted that to mean that they were admitting to being lesser qualified.
THEY said they only got there because of affirmative action. I assume Michelle Obama meant that her husband wouldn't have been elected if not for affirmative action as well, which i disagree with.
He said that in context of a few specific women, not black women in general. Seriously, taking things out of context is so habitual that I can't believe anything.
You can argue that it's a better place with him gone, but it's a much worse place because it happened and because people are celebrating, because it implies that society accepts murdering people who express differing opinions.
Society cannot allow or justify murdering someone for free speech. Op implied that murder was a response to speech, and I am saying murder should not be allowed or considered as a response. It shouldn't be hand waved away like "ah well what did you expect", or fafo or whatever. It should be condemned unanimously.
He certainly wasn't trying to reach a shared truth. He was trying to win the argument. Which is usually the point of debate. But it would be nice if the goal was to reach a shared truth...
No the reason he asked that question about gang violence is because gang violence numbers are a huge percentage of mass shooting numbers, so if you take them out of the calculation then the percentage of trans shooters is much higher and it is a debate about trans shooters. On the other hand, if you include those numbers then it is a debate about guns in general and ideologies or mental health issues get lost in the noise. I would guess he mostly wanted to make a point that the definition of mass shooting is not really in line with how people think of them.
I was only allowed to read the first page, but it was really focused on poor Islamic countries. But hold on, are you suggesting that the right wing policies are intentional, with the goal of making extremists? Seems really simplistic and narrow in scope.
Op implied that free speech does not protect you from being murdered, which is technically true, but it's nonsensical unless he believes murder to be an acceptable response to free speech. It might happen, and in fact it did happen, but it's not ok so why even bring it up? Unless you think it's ok, in which case you are an absolute moron.
Well op said all of the extremists were religious. Since that isn't true and there are many examples to the contrary throughout history, I think it's safe to say that he was too focused on religion.
Not really sure what you are trying to say, but it sounds like you are way too focused on religion being a source for extremism in the world. Yeah there are religious extremists, but every movement has them, or at least has potential for extremists who indoctrinate kids or even advocate for violence against the detractors or enemies of the movement. Always has been and always will be.
Yeah maybe. I assumed he said it because he took issue with the concept of affirmative action in general and wanted to talk about that.