Wydm? Indians work in tech sectors; that takes a high IQ.
Wydm? Indians work in tech sectors; that takes a high IQ.
What if you hate that minority group?
religion is the culture,
ancestry = ethnically.
Where are the Jews ethnically from? If Israel, then they’re Israeli.
community = social group.
They need one consistent definition.
Would you rather stick up for:
You have to select one over the alternative because Black people are the most LGBTphobic race in the US, and expanding LGBT rights into Africa from Europe is neocolonialism.
The question, “Are transwomen real women and should be treated as such?” if a liberal answers no, then it’s offensive to the trans community due to transphobia, and if they answer yes, then it’s offensive to the blacks due to views of expanding white culture.
They have to select. It’s a brutal truth.
Then what does?
-> No, firing based on ethnicity seems less fair
Being Jewish isn’t an ethnicity; it’s an ideology.
->Okay, but people who fire jews tend to fire everyone with that ethnicity, not based on their actions.
Should that be acceptable?
->I don't know, you just have to estimate case by case whether a policy will help society. Making up a percentage is pretending you are more confident than you actually are.
How about just don't consider %?
Did you get the point I made? White liberals defend the poor Indian American until they find out that Indian American is a MAGA that doesn't want to live among black people.
-> The difference with being fired over political posts is that anyone can choose not to discuss politics at work or post controversial stuff online.
Just like Jews can choose to post Torah verses.
-> Also with a group like Jews, if there are a lot of discriminatory feelings toward them, it might be impossible to get a job. Whereas I don't think we're at that point yet with politics, but maybe at some point we will be.
How much counts as, "a lot"? That's some vagueness that should be eliminated.
It's irrelevant how much a group is hated because then x% hate them, and x% is arbitrary.
Edit:
Vihann: I voted for Trump. I'm vegetarian and don't want to live by pet eating black Haitians. Being accepted by Randy feels better than being accepted by Jennifer. White liberal women are annoying by their mere existince. Indian women get slapped a lot. Men are in charge in India. The democrat party is for soft women and gays. Gays don't have equal rights in India and that degeneracy shouldn't.
->I only support laws against discrimination on utilitarian grounds, since discriminatory hiring could lead to large swaths of the population being unemployed because of illogical decision making.
Does this apply to Jews as well? Jews are rare. Would you be fine with someone firing someone for being Jewish?
Randy = White Conservative
Vihaan = Indian, vegetarian.
Jennifer = White liberal
%%
Randy: Look at this dirty shit stained sand monkey! How dare we let these people vote!
Vihaan: (Doesn't care about the insults).
Jennifer: STOP BEING RACIST TO INDIANS!!! I'M an ALLY to the Indian American Community and don't want to see them oppressed. Vihann's voting rights to vote for SOCIAL JUSTICE should NOT be restricted by your racism.
Vihann: I voted for Trump. I'm vegetarian and don't want to live by pet eating black Haitians.
Jennifer: Oh; never mind then. You made your bed, and I won't personally be racist to you, but deal with Randy by yourself. I'm out; I'm going to help the LGBT and the blacks who vote in their best interests. You're on your own now.
Or you focus solely on profit margins as a business.
Would you be fine with it if an employer decided to fire someone for being Jewish? If not, then why is MAGA any different? They are both religions.
->Why does it need to be profit margins?
I can see that, but if you lost your job, then what would you do? Would you be fine with starving for 10 months as you try and find a new one?
-> I mean by this logic, everyone is obligated to hire as many people as they can.
The goal of a company should be to focus on profit margins, not political beliefs of their workers.
A business owner firing a Nazi worker makes life worse for the customers (the majority of whom aren't Nazis) due to their products being delayed, so it's collective punishment.
Good point.
Stay on topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0jjRyhg32w.
I just found this video. It seems legit.
But if me saying, "Haitians in Springfield are eating pets" is racist, then I think it's good to be racist. If you disagree, then please explain why.
Left wingers need to understand that the word, "racist" is no longer an insult, so it isn't used to shut down debate anymore. Maybe racism is flat out good.
Based on this information, #Trump2024 (although if he raped kids, then he should be executed for it). Get Vance in there. He can enact good policies without Epstein's stench on him.
Firing takes away their income (so they might starve) and re applying for a new job takes a long time.
Talking is just speech. Someone can insult you and you will survive. But firing is a death sentence (I'm exaggerating, but you get the point)?
You need a job to live; you don't need nice words to live.
-> Should a Jewish boss have to keep working with someone who talks about how much they hate Jews the whole time they interact?
Yes. That hypothetical Nazi worker (I'm not a Nazi) hates Jews, but it's merely talk. They aren't murdering their Jewish boss; they aren't burning his place down. They are merely expressing hateful opinions and if they ran for public office, then the Jewish person doesn't have to vote for them (and I wouldn't), but mean words don't destroy your business; they are annoying for maybe 5 seconds. I would rather have a Nazi co worker than a co worker that smokes to the extent where I can smell it; yes, the Nazi has horrible opinions, but at least they don't make me more likely to get lung cancer. Their opinions are just words to me.
I hate the opinions of the 53% of young women who don't believe I'm a human because they think I'm worse than a bear if they merely didn't know me and I think they're idiots for it that should never be taken seriously, but workplaces need thick skins. They aren't macing me due to their sexist beliefs, but an opinion is an opinion and even if the opinion is horrible, if an anti male sexist can accomplish spreadsheet work and I need spreadsheet work done, then so be it. I'll put up with their opinions and their speech if they can get the work done. I don't respect their opinion, but I have a job that needs to be done.
The Worker Verbal Protection Act would prohibit private entities (as well as government, which already exists under the 1st amendment) from discriminating against other private entities based on political orientation and establish that the freedom of verbal speech takes precedence over the freedom of association speech. It prohibits finding loopholes (ex: he came in 5 min late, so we fired him) if not applied to other workers in the facility who don’t have the opinion the boss wants to fire them for.
Left wingers now know what it’s like to be the victims of discrimination based on political orientation because so many left wingers are being fired for criticizing Charlie Kirk; the same thing that conservatives had to put up with for years.
If anyone opposes this bill, then indicate why.
Every group I have positive and negative opinions of on various criteria. I will give credit to transgenders for having extremely good memory, but they are also extremely petty. Latinos tend to be very collected and logical people, but they also often get angry pretty easily (especially when their kids are involved). I could go to a Latino parent with their 8 year old kid, tell them that their kid can't swim because they might drown as a lifeguard, and they would say, "How DARE you tell me what to do with my child!!"
America is a melting pot; so the good aspects of every culture should be expanded on and the bad parts should be eliminated.
->Thats the issue. Calling them different gender counts as bullying. No one is forcing you, but they dont misgender you so why misgender them?
I'm an XY chromosome dude. If someone called me a woman, then I'd ask them, "Why do you think I'm a woman?" and see what they say. My brother called me a woman multiple times. I don't get violent over it. He would say, "Because you got man boobs." (but that means a lot of XY people would be women then).
If someone calls Dawn Dismuke a man, then Dawn could ask as to why, but Dawn already knows the answer (the person that called Dawn a man is merely a chromosome absolutist and then they would probably talk about the validity of chromosome absolutism).
->Have you considered the possibility that 70% of people bullying them forces them to block people online in order to create safe space for themselves?
A "safe space" is a euphemism for a, "censorship zone".
->While other people find safe spaces easily, trans people dont.
I would have blocked you if I wanted a safe space. I don't do that because safe spaces suck as a matter of principle. All political views should be scrutinized as much as plausible.
Logic matters; feelings don't.
-> Even tho their wishes dont affect others, other people bully them for their wishes.
No; they get bullied because of their personalities. Ideologically petty people deserve to be verbally bullied (it crosses the line if punches are thrown).
->I dont see why "I leave you alone and you leave me alone" is something people refuse to do when it comes to trans people.
Because they are a political movement. If they take HRT, then nobody cares. If they call themselves women based on how they identify, then they're allowed to do that. If they want to force person A to call them a woman solely based on how they identify, then they aren't leaving others alone (so they aren't following their own advice). If they want to work a job, then they will interact with other people (and leaving them alone here means the boss has the right to fire them for being trans).
-> They have enough issues with 70% of people mocking them. Why do you have to be one of 70%?
Because their personalities suck. They are so petty that they will block you if you play a Metallica song.
->Do you care about how I dress or how I call myself? Will the quality of your life be affected by clothes I wear? Now, why would you care what trans person wears?
I don't get angry at trans people for often wearing dresses.
Are they by and large child rapists or groomers? No!
Should we send them to gulag or Auschwitz? No!
BUT transgenders (with few exceptions) are arrogant, petty, anti free speech, and they love ignorance.
I was on this trans person's discord (they were left wing), there was this gay conservative that made a video about them, they responded, the gay conservative made a follow up, the trans person refused to make a follow up.
I offered to defend this person on my YT channel while I was on their discord, and the other people there (many were trans) were saying that they didn't want to argue with the gay conservative.
They then booted me for posting a Metallica song on their song page.
They are arrogant, petty, anti free speech, and they love ignorance while defaulting to authority for all of their answers (when the authority just says what's profitable for them instead of what's accurate). THAT is why I don't like these people and why they should change their outlook.
79% of the population believes they are men and every single trans activist has dozens of dissidents blocked.
When your contentious viewpoint is in the minority, you don't get to block and disassociate with the majority. The transphobic majority can do it to you because they might want to retain their majority influence.
All ideological minority positions should be laughed at if they block and massively disassociate with their disagreement majority.
PETA is a minority, and they learned that blocking the people they want to convert is stupid.
All trans creators should unblock everybody that they blocked or else I laugh at their political naiveness.
->This is what happens when you are incapable or unwilling to deal with nuance.
There is no nuance presented by your side.
->"The media" expresses many different viewpoints, and in today's environment of social media and podcasts no one can possibly control all of the messaging.
It's a few people that control the bulk of the messaging and then everyone else supports the current thing.
->Elections are decentralized, you can rig them out of grandma's kitchen.
I'm sure you could. But elections are for show.
->Because in many of these places politics isn't about who has better ideas for improving people's lives, it's about a sense of belonging and personal identity.
That's politics virtually everywhere. If you like cowboy hats and fishing, then you're probably MAGA. If you like books and garden plants, then Never Trumper probably.
->Let me guess, you saw this on tic tok?
YT.
-> So you are equating a man getting his dick eaten off with someone who was actually born with a vagina. Yeah, great point.
Given how gender surgeries occur, yes.
-> There are many different factors to consider when forming a definition of male or female.
List them.
-> On the right they don't recognize this
Or they want a consistently applied dictionary definition.
-> And also, because "I" love democracy? What does that even mean, do you not?
I think democracy is a show and elections are predetermined by the 6 people that run the media (I’m not trying to make this about the Jews). They let people vote and they decide the results in an apartment building in Manhattan. What incentive do elections have to be accurate? If they lie, then who catches them?
Ever wonder how the poorest parts of the country are the most conservative? In reality, they are the most progressive, but because election results are made up on the spot, the people that do that would think it would be fun to be a little bit contrarian with the numbers.
-> No one is claiming that identifying as something makes you that something.
Plenty of people believe that.
-> it's called lying in order to manipulate people into accepting a political viewpoint
How can you tell what is true/false? The FDA tells you to eat a lot of carbs. Trust nobody.
-> There is a very big difference between cheering the murder of a single individual who is viewed as responsible for spreading a dangerous and hateful ideology, vs wishing fort the deaths of over 200 million people. Both are abhorrent, but the former doesn't come close to the latter so asserting it with no evidence of a connection is ridiculous.
All conservatives spread beliefs the left argues are dangerous and hateful. Don’t kill 200 million people.
-> Well at least we're admitting that the political right in this country is a fascist movement. That's progress, I guess...
What it used to be:
You said the right was facsist and I denied it.
Once I learned how you defined fascism (having any right wing opinion), the Overton window shifted:
I support Facsism and you don’t. I will let you water down the definition of facsism so it encompasses more people.
-> No serious person said that.
I’ve heard from transgender activists that the right wants to murder them for being trans (which maybe some do, but I don’t want to murder transgenders for being against the first amendment). I just hate them for being against the first amendment on the personal level and I do NOT want to murder them over it; I just hope they become irrelevant on YT.
-> A rape victim is a person who actually got raped. What happened with Kirk is that he (the individual) was killed by a deranged kid. You didn't get killed.
Obviously rape victims suffered more than ME. BUT they suffered less than Charlie Kirk because getting murdered is worse than getting raped. Getting raped is (obviously) worse than dealing with childish minded trans people on the internet. But murder is worse than rape. I’d rather get raped 100x than get murdered.
-> Not only because retaliation Isa normal concern in any situation such as this, but because it's the right salivating at the prospect of going to war with many claiming we are at war.
If the right was mass murdering leftists en masse (even the petty transgender leftists), then I would probably flat out join your side. I voted against Trump in 2024. But if the, “going to war” against the ideologically conformist left was merely retaliatory disassociations and firings, then I’m on board 100%.