More victories from my efforts to advance civil rights and challenge systemic sexism in higher education - Mark J. Perry

[–]contraterrene 78 points79 points80 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 38 points39 points40 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]galtthedestroyer 18 points19 points20 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]73Scamper 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManofGod1000 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IronJohnMRA 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 27 points28 points29 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hehimCA 12 points13 points14 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]watermelonicecream 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JohnKimble111[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IronJohnMRA 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YesAmAThrowaway 10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alexypine 25 points26 points27 points 5 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[+]WorldController -11 points-10 points-9 points 5 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alexypine 15 points16 points17 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WorldController -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]WorldController -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]WorldController 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

Equality before the law means everyone being subject to the same rules, redistribution of wealth means an attempt at equality of outcome.

What's your point? Since equality before the law entails the conviction of guilty parties and acquittal of not guilty individuals, isn't it also an attempt at equality of outcome vis-à-vis justice?

Two of the biggest 3 disasters of the twentieth century were the communist "People's Republics" in China and Russia.

Neither of these countries was communist. As I explain here:

The term "socialism" is defined as an economic system in which the means of production (things like factories, property, and natural resources) are collectively owned and democratically controlled directly by the people. "Communism," on the other hand, refers to societies that are classless, stateless, moneyless, and socialist. While the Western media love to refer to certain troubled states (e.g., the USSR, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela) as either "socialist" or "communist," these usages of those terms are misnomers. In actuality, no nations in modern history have been either socialist or communist. On the contrary, all such nations have been classist states relying on a money economy in which the means of production are either privately owned, or else controlled by an elite bureaucratic class.

You are confusing industry nationalization with redistribution of wealth. However, they are not the same thing.

Similar disasters occur wherever wealth redistribution is attempted.

Might you give some examples?

Keep in mind that, as Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and other revolutionary thinkers have brilliantly argued, in order for a socialist revolution to be successful it is necessary for the global working class to organize and mobilize against the capitalist ruling class in all nations. This is because socialism cannot be sustained for long in a singular country in the context of ruthless competition against the overarching, dominant capitalist nations, which has taken the form of economic sanctions, election coups, and even outright military action. This was proven correct following the 1917 October Revolution in Russia, which is the only instance wherein workers deposed the ruling class and took ownership and control of society's means of production. Following this event, the surrounding capitalist nations worked diligently to suppress and contain the revolution by military means. Keep in mind that the revolution, spearheaded by the Bolshevik Party, occurred in the midst of WWI, whose effort recruited and thus led to the deaths of thousands of experienced party leaders, which further weakened the movement and helped secure Stalin's seizure of power following Lenin's death and the workers' state's consequent degeneration. (For further reading on this point, refer to Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed.)

Stalin, as part of the "moderate wing" of the party, of course had always harbored counterrevolutionary opportunist politics, and his regime actively spurred the development of similar nationalist movements worldwide, including Mao's China and Castro's Cuba, in line with its "socialism in one country" philosophy. These movements have all been hostile to the internationalist perspective of Marx et al.

You are offering a very simplistic, abstract take here and neglecting crucial historical details that resulted in the disasters of the so-called "communist" nations, a point I discuss here in response to another anticommunist who made similar remarks:

The reality you ignore is that there is always a privileged class in charge in any of your utopias that exist.

Again, neither socialist nor communist societies (utopias) have existed in modern history. However, even if we grant that such societies have existed, you are resorting to a fallacy called "false abstraction," which I discuss here in response to similar anticommunist rhetoric:

These failed transition states existed in a particular sociohistorical context, and each failed for specific reasons. You seem to be guilty of the fallacy called false abstraction here. Essentially, you're suggesting that, just because a few concrete examples of this particular abstraction (communism) failed, this necessarily means all possible concrete manifestations of communism must fail. Obviously, this is erroneous because failure in specific concrete examples does not speak to the abstraction as a whole. For example, the failure of a particular school does not suggest that education as a whole is a failure. All it shows is that particular school failed for reasons specific to it that are not characteristic of education in the abstract.

It is simply illogical to infer anything about communism as a whole, in the abstract, based on specific concrete examples that ended in "failure" due to particular sociohistorical/geopolitical factors that have nothing to do with communism per se.

Of course, learning about these nations requires no insignificant amount of studying. It's much easier to just summarily and uncritically dismiss them, but such an approach clearly betrays a lack of respect and appreciation for the truth.

It only works when nobody has anything.

Please elaborate on this point. It doesn't make much sense to me that the redistribution of wealth would result in universal poverty. Even in capitalism, where the vast majority of wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few, there is still a sizable (albeit rapidly shrinking) middle class, and even most lower-class populations aren't living in abject conditions. How could it be that the expropriation of these few people's exorbitant wealth and its redistribution to the masses impoverishes them?

[–]mikesteane 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]WorldController 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]simon_sjw 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Hey - lots of things to consider here but if I can make a small contribution - the equality before the law as equality of outcome discussion I think hinges on whether agency can or should be ascribed to groups. The fact that this is about securing the conviction of guilty individuals and acquittal of not guilty individuals means that it isn't an attempt at equality of outcome. I think this might also be a good example to show how a drive for equality of outcome can be seen in this instance as unjust (and perhaps more generally unjust but I'm sure you would require further discussion before accepting that on face). Equality of outcome would be defining a set of groups into which you distribute the individuals who are to be tried. You then add an additional constraint to the deliberation at each trail that the judge or jury conduct deliberations in a way which delivers the same portion of guilty verdicts across those groups regardless of the individual circumstances of each case. My belief is that deciding the guilt or innocence of an individual using factors which relate to a preferred statistical outcome across high-level groups is unjust.

[–]WorldController 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The fact that this is about securing the conviction of guilty individuals and acquittal of not guilty individuals means that it isn't an attempt at equality of outcome.

I disagree with your premise. While legal proceedings of course operate against individuals, their function in society targets particular groups (criminal suspects, not guilty individuals, guilty individuals). The whole purpose of law is to reduce the incidence of criminal behavior at large, not just of singular individuals.

If the system strives toward convicting all guilty parties and acquitting all of their not guilty counterparts equally, how is it not an attempt at equality of outcome, at least for these respective groups?

deciding the guilt or innocence of an individual using factors which relate to a preferred statistical outcome across high-level groups is unjust.

True, but that would simply be a different variant of "equality of outcome." This phenomenon isn't restricted to just a particular form.

[–]simon_sjw 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dazmo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]WorldController 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

It's precisely the fact that I agree that justice = equality that makes me a right winger.

You are actually precisely wrong here. As I explicated to some other politically uneducated person:

You have an idiosyncratic misconception of what [left- VS right-wing] are. As I explain here:

Broadly speaking, political conservatism refers to efforts to maintain (or "conserve") the status quo, whatever it may be. Since the first class societies formed some 10,000 years ago and generated widespread economic and general social inequality, conservatism has been characteristically anti-egalitarian; it has henceforth functioned to maintain this highly unequal state of affairs.

...and here:

The term "right-wing" (conservatism) is variously defined as "the view that certain . . . hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable," "a political and social philosophy [whose] central tenets . . . include tradition, hierarchy, and authority," "the intellectual justification of inequality and privilege, and the political justification of the authoritative relationships such inequalities and privileges demand," etc.

Conversely, "left-wing" is defined in such ways as politics that "supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy," "the most liberal and egalitarian element of a political party or other group," "the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism," etc.

To be sure, left- VS right-wing politics are contradistinguished vis-à-vis their position on equality, with the former advocating it and the latter instead promoting hierarchies. It is unclear why you believe otherwise.

"Social justice", the left wing new think version of justice, is not justice. It is trash.

Can you give some examples of what you mean? Keep in mind that nominally left-wing communities are currently undergoing a severe fauxgressive (pseudoleftist) crisis, particularly when it comes to issues pertaining to men/women, gender, and sexuality. Virtually all self-proclaimed "leftists" buy into some fauxgressive hype or another, many of which resort to decidedly inegalitarian (right-wing) methods including abusive cancel culture in promulgating their views. To be sure, these more militant "social justice warriors" are not left-wingers.

[–]dazmo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It's precisely the fact that I agree that justice = equality that makes me a right winger.

You are actually precisely false here.

Nope, that's why. You asked, and that's my answer. You're not going to convince me that I think something I don't, but how very "gaslighting cult" of you to try.

Broadly speaking, political conservatism refers to efforts to maintain (or "conserve") the status quo, whatever it may be.

Incorrect. Political conservatism refers to efforts to maintain things that are beneficial and that work, and to fix things that don't. Getting something so fundamentally wrong so early in your diatribe is very disheartening to those you wish to gaslight. You have to be more subtle, not that it'll work on me. I'm going to have to skip the rest of this crap until you correct this very first egregious falsehood.

Except this which I accidentally saw while deleting the rest of the quote:

Conversely, "left-wing" is defined in such ways as politics that "[supports social equality and egalitarianism

I'm going to define murdering people as "very very good". Do you buy it? No? Why, do you hate things that are "very very good"? Is affirmative action egalitarianism? You do know what egalitarianism means, right?

Put down your cult-tract version of a dictionary and learn to think.

Jk I actually agree with everything you've said I was just playing devil's advocate. Please don't digitally decapitate me. Heil biden.

[–]WorldController 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

You're not going to convince me that I think something I don't, but how very "gaslighting cult" of you to try.

Psychology major here. Gaslighting refers to invalidating people's perceptions in order to get them to doubt their sanity. By explaining how your claim is false, I'm not at all attacking you personally, let alone even addressing your perceptions. You are once again incorrect here.

Political conservatism refers to efforts to maintain things that are beneficial and that work, and to fix things that don't.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Again, this is simply your own idiosyncratic misconception.

I'm going to have to skip the rest of this crap until you correct this very first egregious falsehood.

Don't you think it's a little hypocritical of you to accuse me of gaslighting for saying that you are "precisely false" on this matter, then go on to tell me that I'm committing a falsehood here?

I'm going to define murdering people as "very very good". Do you buy it? No? Why, do you hate things that are "very very good"?

This is a bad analogy, which is a logical fallacy. There's a distinction between idiosyncratically defining terms, which, as another example of your hypocrisy, is actually the tack you've taken here, and citing authoritative encyclopedic/dictionary definitions. C'mon now.

Is affirmative action egalitarianism?

Not intrinsically, in the abstract. However, certain concrete forms of affirmative action that ameliorate prevalent inequalities do in fact fulfill an egalitarian political function.

Put down your cult-tract version of a dictionary and learn to think.

You think the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Free Dictionary, and Wikipedia are "cultic?" Where are you getting your information?

Heil biden.

As a representative of the Democratic Party, which is the oldest pro-capitalist party in the world, Biden is by no means a left-winger. Really, he's not much different from Trump. I've actually been calling him Trump 2.0 for almost two years now.

[–]dazmo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You're not going to convince me that I think something I don't, but how very "gaslighting cult" of you to try.

Psychology major here. Gaslighting refers to invalidating people's perceptions in order to get them to doubt their sanity. By explaining how your claim is false, I'm not at all attacking you personally, let alone even addressing your perceptions. You are once again incorrect here.

Psychology majors tend to pick their major in their first semester because psychology 101 is mandatory.

It's mandatory because it serves as orientation, and the psychology departments could take the extra strain. I'm fact they needed it because nobody was enrolling otherwise. Your attampted 'appeal to accomplishment' is fallacious, and "You're wrong because you're wrong again" is circular reasoning. Abandon your sophistry.

Political conservatism refers to efforts to maintain things that are beneficial and that work, and to fix things that don't.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Again, this is simply your own idiosyncratic misconception.

History

I'm going to have to skip the rest of this crap until you correct this very first egregious falsehood.

Don't you think it's a little hypocritical of you to accuse me of gaslighting for saying that you are "precisely false" on this matter, then go on to tell me that I'm committing a falsehood here?

No, it's truthful. Truth isn't gaslighting. Your perfectly willing acceptance on behalf of conservatives of the extremist view that "anything old is perfect" without even wondering if people actually think like that is very telling of your nature. You need someone to shit on and you'll accept any target as long as enough people were on board with it first. You're a cowardly pig wallowing in ignorance because you get the occasional "good boy" from your masters.

I'm going to define murdering people as "very very good". Do you buy it? No? Why, do you hate things that are "very very good"?

This is a bad analogy, which is a logical fallacy. There's a distinction between idiosyncratically defining terms, which, as another example of your hypocrisy, is actually the tack you've taken here, and citing authoritative encyclopedic/dictionary definitions. C'mon now.

Your definitions are fallacious. Just because it's in your cult tract doesn't make it true. Claiming that it's true because it's true is fallacious. It's circular reasoning.

Is affirmative action egalitarianism?

Not intrinsically, in the abstract. However, certain concrete forms of affirmative action that ameliorate prevalent inequalities do in fact fulfill an egalitarian political function.

No, they don't. It's a bandaid. And it's meant to be removed.

Put down your cult-tract version of a dictionary and learn to think.

You think the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Free Dictionary, and Wikipedia are "cultic?" Where are you getting your information?

Are they where you're getting your fallacies? The zeal with which you hold to them makes them your cult tract woobies. Also, wikipedia is a source aggregator not a source.

Heil biden.

As a representative of the Democratic Party, which is the oldest pro-capitalist party in the world, Biden is by no means a left-winger.

He is actually, and he isn't pro capitalist. He's a communist. He demands complete allegiance to government masters.

Really, he's not much different from Trump. I've actually been calling him Trump 2.0 for almost two years now.

How are they even remotely similar? Because they're old white men? What a joke.

[–]WorldController -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Your attampted 'appeal to accomplishment' is fallacious

Keep in mind that, in logic, arguments consist of three components: Premise, supporting evidence, and conclusion. Fallacies occur when there's some sort of fault with an argument, such as when when the conclusion does not follow from the evidence.

While it may be fallacious to argue, "I study psychology, therefore I'm right," I did not state or suggest this. Your claim that I did is therefore a strawman, which itself is a logical fallacy.

"You're wrong because you're wrong again" is circular reasoning.

While that would be circular reasoning, as I did not state or suggest that, this is another strawman. Rather, I elaborated on why your claim of "gaslighting" was false.

History

The word "history" is not evidence for your claim that "conservatism refers to efforts to maintain things that are beneficial and that work, and to fix things that don't." Moreover, this is a proof by example fallacy—I was looking for a citation in the form of a definition that corroborates your own, not for examples.

No, it's truthful.

Unfortunately, simply declaring "You're wrong!" is not productive or helpful in debate. The burden is on you to demonstrate why you believe I'm wrong, not simply spout your feelings on the matter. Failure to honor your burden amounts to a cop out, meaning you lose the debate.

Your perfectly willing acceptance on behalf of conservatives of the extremist view that "anything old is perfect"

This is yet another strawman. Please quote where you believe I stated or suggested this.

without even wondering if people actually think like that is very telling of your nature.

People's subjective feelings are irrelevant to the objective consensus regarding the semiotic symbols used to denote particular referents (i.e., words and their definitions).

Incidentally, that you believe subjectivism trumps objective fact is consistent with your fanatical obsession with your own idiosyncratic definitions and rejection of authoritative sources' counterparts. It is very fitting that you maintain this view. (Before you go on to accuse me of an ad hominem, since I'm attacking your credibility by raising relevant issues, this is actually what's called a "fair use" ad hominem, which isn't fallacious.)

You need someone to shit on and you'll accept any target as long as enough people were on board with it first.

Who am I shitting on by listing authoritative definitions? You're making this discussion needlessly personal. Try to stick to the topic at hand.

You're a cowardly pig wallowing in ignorance because you get the occasional "good boy" from your masters.

You're going a little off the rails into the realm of insanity here. Again, stick to the topic, and leave me personally out of this. I'm not gonna tell you again.

Your definitions are fallacious.

Refer back to what I explained about fallacies. Definitions are not logical arguments; they cannot be "fallacious."

Just because it's in your cult tract doesn't make it true. Claiming that it's true because it's true is fallacious. It's circular reasoning.

This is the same kind of strawman you made before. I never issued such an argument. On the contrary, this is the very argument you seem to be making: "My definition is true because I say so, and regardless of whether it conflicts with the standard variant."

It's a bandaid.

You're saying that equalizing inegalitarian social arrangements is a "band-aid?" If that's the case, then what's the ultimate, lasting solution? What are you saying this is a "band-aid" to?

it's meant to be removed.

Efforts to equalize are meant to cease once equalization has been achieved, yes? How, then, do these certain forms of affirmative action not fulfill an egalitarian function?

The zeal with which you hold to them makes them your cult tract woobies.

You're being ludicrously hypocritical, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to take you seriously. Remember, you are the fanatical one here who refuses to accept linguistic consensus in favor of your pet concepts. This is blatant, zealous single-mindedness.

wikipedia is a source aggregator not a source.

You're splitting hairs, which is still one more logical fallacy by you. Just because Wikipedia is not an original source does not mean it isn't a source of information. Literally anything that contains information is a source.

He's a communist.

The sheer ignorance and stupidity of this statement is risible. Communist societies are, by definition, classless, stateless, socialist, and moneyless; socialism, in turn, refers to economic systems in which the means of production are collectively owned and democratically controlled by the people. By no means does Biden, who for decades has been friendly to the military and Wall Street and who today viciously promotes the "back-to-school/work" drive in order to force parents to continue producing wealth for capitalists at the expense of their own safety and lives, support revolutionary communist politics. It is unclear what has given you this comically distorted impression.

He demands complete allegiance to government masters.

Given that the government masters are capitalist business owners themselves, it is unclear what this has to do with communism.

How are they even remotely similar?

They're both arrogant, crude, uncouth, classist, racist, rich stooges of the capitalist ruling class. The only difference between them is that Biden comes in a slightly neater packaging; otherwise, they are fundamentally indistinct.

[–]dazmo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

While it may be fallacious to argue, "I study psychology, therefore I'm right," I did not state or suggest this. Your claim that I did is therefore a strawman, which itself is a logical fallacy.

That may be true only if there was any other conclusion to be drawn to explain why you mentioned it in he first place, which there is not, as further evidenced by your lack of offering one twice

While that would be circular reasoning, as I did not state or suggest that this is another strawman.

Incorrect, you don't have to say you're engaging in circular reasoning in order to be engaging in circular reasoning. Suggesting that you do is an appeal to authority. A very false authority. It's almost beyond humorous and rapidly approaching disgusting.

Rather, I elaborated on why your claim of "gaslighting" was false.

Did you do that in your head?

The word "history" is not evidence for your claim that "conservatism refers to efforts to maintain things that are beneficial and that work, and to fix things that don't."

No, just the word isn't. No one suggested that is was. Congratulations on your flawless and seemingly effortless exemplification if the strawman fallacy, and willful desperate appeal to ignorance

Moreover, this is a proof by example fallacy—I was looking for a citation in the form of a definition that corroborates your own, not for examples.

I'm looking for a chicken salad that tastes like beer. We can't always get what we want, and what we want isn't always what we need.

Unfortunately, simply declaring "You're wrong!" is not productive or helpful in debate.

Except when you do it apparently

The burden is on you to demonstrate why you believe I'm wrong, not simply spout your feelings on the matter.

The burden us on you to demonstrate why you think your definitions are valuable instead of just taking your favorite dictionaries weird for it. You've failed here, and I have no problem assuming it isn't the first time, though you may have gotten praise for it from someone who's getting paid to do so.

Failure to honor your burden amounts to a cop out, meaning you lose the debate.

Which is why you already lost. There is no debate. You're in class, kid.

This is yet another strawman. Please quote where you believe I stated or suggested this

You say it's a strawman then ask for evidence. Hilarious use of intellectual dishonesty. Check the definition you* gave* for conservatism again.

People's subjective feelings are irrelevant to the objective consensus regarding the semiotic symbols used to denote particular referents (i.e., words and their definitions).

No one is talking about subjective feelings. That's not what nature and character are. A dishonest person with more dictionary than brains isn't a subjective position. It's flowery language, but truth and Inttelligence (and your complete lack thereof) are not arbitrary or suggestive measures.

Incidentally, that you believe subjectivism trumps objective fact is consistent with your fanatical obsession with your own idiosyncratic definitions and rejection of authoritative sources' counterparts.

The fact that you believe dictionary definitions trump actual historical reality suggests your limitless Intellectual dishonesty.

It is very fitting that you maintain this view. (Before you go on to accuse me of an ad hominem, since I'm attacking your credibility by raising relevant issues, this is actually what's called a ["fair use" ad hominem], which isn't fallacious.)

Your laughable projections aren't ad hom, but they are fitting of your cult status.

Who am I shitting on by listing authoritative definitions?

Reality and anyone who values it since you shrink away from learning anything about the history of the groups your fallacious and non-authoritative dictionaries shut on with false definitions.

You're making this discussion needlessly personal. Try to stick to the topic at hand.

That's all this conversation can be about until you abandon your sophistry.

You're a cowardly pig wallowing in ignorance because you get the occasional "good boy" from your masters.

You're going a little off the rails here into insanity. Again, stick to the topic, and leave me personally out of this. I'm not gonna tell you again.

Good, cause it's not making me care. I'd hate to see you waste more keystrokes. Those things are only rated for so many you know.

Your definitions are fallacious.

Refer back to what I explained about fallacies. Definitions are not logical arguments; they cannot be "fallacious."

www.merriam-webster.com › fallaci... Web results Fallacious | Definition of Fallacious by Merriam-Webster

Just because it's in your cult tract doesn't make it true. Claiming that it's true because it's true is fallacious. It's circular reasoning.

This is the same kind of strawman you made before. I never made such an argument.

It's the only argument you've even tried to make. And it's the reason why you're failing.

On the contrary, this is the very argument you seem to be making: "My definition is true because I say so, and regardless of whether it conflicts with the standard variant."

Incorrect. Just because you disregard history and actual facts doesn't make them go away. They aren't the monster in your closet. You're the monster in it's closet.

It's a bandaid.

You're saying that equalizing inegalitarian social arrangements is a "band-aid?"

No, I'm not. And that isn't what you espouse regardless of what you nane it.

If that's the case, then what's the ultimate, lasting solution? What are you saying this is a "band-aid" to?

Looking for a final solution, eh, adolf? Fitting.

Efforts to equalize are meant to cease once equalization has been achieved, yes? How, then, do these certain forms of affirmative action not fulfill an egalitarian function?

How do they fulfill one? How do you know when there needs to be one? How do you know once it's done it's job? The fact that none of these questions are ever asked by the people who espouse the "final solution" you're looking for, and are never answered, indicates fully that they cannot equalize anything. You can't answer a question that nobody asked.

The zeal with which you hold to them makes them your cult tract woobies.

You're being ludicrously hypocritical, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to take you seriously. Remember, you are the fanatical one here who refuses to accept linguistic consensus in favor of your pet concepts. This is blatant, zealous single-mindedness.

You refuse facts and history and substitute cult dogma.

wikipedia is a source aggregator not a source.

You're splitting hairs, which is still one more logical fallacy by you.

That's not splitting hairs, it's just a fact. Wikipedia isn't a source. That's why most college professors don't accept it as a source.

Just because Wikipedia is not an original source does not mean it isn't a source of information. Literally anything that contains information is a source.

You might as well cite "books" then. Kinda like when I cited "history" but I'm a hypocrite lol.

You're gonna be too tired to climb out after spending so much time digging that hole.

The sheer ignorance and stupidity of this statement is risible.

He's still a communist. You can piss yourself all you want about it, idc.

Communist societies are, by definition, classless, stateless, socialist, and moneyless; socialism, in turn, refers to economic systems in which the means of production are collectively owned and democratically controlled by the people.

I didn't call him a communist society, numbnuts. I called him a communist. And you can differentiate between the tastes of two turds all you want, hairsplitter. I'm not the one eating shit though.

By no means does Biden, who for decades has been friendly to the military and Wall Street

He's friendly to everyone. Especially small children. I bet he'd even let to rub his wet hairy legs.

and who today viciously promotes the "back-to-school/work" drive in order to force parents to continue producing wealth for capitalists at the expense of their own safety and lives, support revolutionary communist politics.

In his first day in office he ended thousands of jobs. And he is still a communist who hopes to subjugate everyone so that all the wealth is channeled to "the people" which are the nicknames he's given to his pockets.

Just👏like👏communist👏leaders👏invariably👏do

Why can't you see that you're in a cult? At least televangelists ask you to donate all your welfare checks before telling you you're going to ~~capitalism~~ hell first.

It is unclear what has given you this comically distorted impression.

Reality. No shit it's unclear to you.

Given that the government masters are capitalist business owners themselves, it is unclear what this has to do with communism.

Are you trying to make the argument that because wealthy people seem to have more influence the government, that we should get rid of the wealthy people by giving all the power to ~~the people~~ the government?

God communists are fuckin dumb.

How are they even remotely similar?

They're both arrogant, crude, uncouth, classist, racist, rich stooges of the capitalist ruling class. The only difference between them is that Biden comes in a slightly neater packaging; otherwise, they are fundamentally indistinct.

So? You're dumb as hell but id still let you eat my ass. People like you seem to think that the office of POTUS is like winning american idol or something. It isn't. It's a job. You don't have to want to fuck someone or even like them to hire them, adolf. Grow up.

[–]AVBGaming 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Burlerevyy 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]i_hate_mayonnaise 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]th3empirial 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arzakhan 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Burlerevyy 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IronJohnMRA 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dazmo 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DougDante 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	More victories from my efforts to advance civil rights and challenge systemic sexism in higher education - Mark J. Perry
Author	JohnKimble111
Upvotes	580
Comments	45
Date	February 20, 2021 9:06 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/lo3bh8/more_victories_from_my_efforts_to_advance_civil/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/more-victories-from-my-efforts-to-advance-civil.833922 https://theredarchive.com/post/833922

Comments