thor's entire argument was that "the critics of various civil rights movement have historically been wrong in the end every time; they used a twisted and extreme image of the goals of these movements to unfairly criticize them and fearmonger against them."

as an example of this, he cited the supposedly distorted claim from evil backwards racists on the wrong side of history that one the goals of the civil rights movement was to give blacks more rights than whites.
well, tough luck, but this supposedly distorted claim turned out to be the plain truth. I gave concrete and pretty unrefutable examples of instances where the direct end result of the civil rights movement was blacks having more rights and privileges than whites in some areas.

yes, of course blacks were oppressed and historically disenfranchised, and they still remain a group that is underprivileged overall. therefore, a case can surely be made that granting them certain patronization and privileges might be justified. but all of that doesnt change the fact that the existence of preferential treatment for blacks (which came as a result of the civil rights movement) is a direct counterexample to his argument and hence disproves it.




the position that "women should generally be given the benefit of the doubt in he said she said situations" turned into the mainstream when the vast majority of congressional democrats and significant portions of the mainstream media joined in on this position during the Kavanaugh hearings. it was NOT a minority of the political left who took this position...

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 10 2019 08:45pm

Missouri

I guess this just shows how far coastal university bubbles on the one side and rural america on the other side have grown apart from one another.

If you start a race and Racer #1 punches Racer #2 in the face, is giving Racer #2 back the ground he lost giving him an advantage? Of course not. Now you can say "but the current people didn't punch anybody in the face!" yet they had the baton passed to them with that ground already gained.

Were these people calling for it in a legal sense? As in prosecutorial? Because "in my opinion we should give them the benefit of the doubt and get somebody without that baggage" isn't a radical opinion, but "we should jail them on one testimony since we should assume its always true" definitely is, and I don't think the latter is seriously considered by anybody.

Also, I saw a ton of criticism of Kavanaugh coming out of how he conducted himself during the hearings, which I then saw people claim was "they're saying we should take her word for it", so if you could give me some names I'd be happy to read it. Admittedly I didn't follow that case closely as it was happening.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 10 2019 09:00pm

Statistics show that racism is uncommon. Statistics also show that it is equal among both parties. Meanwhile I have to listen to moron Thor babble about race baiting from here to eternity.

Statistics also show that it's unpopular, so perhaps directly polling people isn't a great way to figure out the prevelance.

wtf is this shit?!

"bring country into WWII for no reason", u serious? and what does it mean by "warmonger a lot"? FDR tried to keep the US out of ww2, but the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor left him no choice. obviously, the 35% of GDP on military spending was a direct consequence of the war which was forced upon him.

Neither of those things is a radical opinion. It's a personal statement of belief based on the circumstances of, and the testimony given. If she said "I think this testimony is rock solid and want criminal charges right now" that would be another story, but what you posted alone isn't anything concerning.