Large social media outlets targeting Steven Crowder

[ErickAA]

Aren't the same people who were highly critical of the wedding cake fiasco also the ones defending YouTubes decision to also discriminate based on their ideological principles. Seems the hypocrisy runs both ways, which is pretty standard.

One is about choosing customers and the other is about choosing partners. One is discrimination and the other one isn't.

I am curious what your definition of the word discrimination is? It appears you presented an argument exactly why it is discrimination. I even highlighted the word you used which is a synonym of discrimination.

I think what you mean is that one form of discrimination is legal and perhaps even the morally correct decision, and the other is neither.

[ErickAA]

It seems we have a major breakdown in communication, where I am telling you exactly what I think, which is pretty consistent with my 2000+ post history, and you are telling me I think something different. As long as you continue to exist in an alternate reality where you are just making up my positions and then telling me why those made up positions are wrong, I am not sure how we can move forward at all.

I am not sure what I am telling you that you think differently. I do not believe you would rallying behind a serious Hitler type person being able to be on a private site like Youtube, even if you believe you would right now. Your pro-jewish bias when talking about Israel makes that belief of yours very suspect, whether you engage with FPS or not. Who knows though. People can say they'd do all sorts of shit. Maybe you would.

You rarely even confront the stupid shit you say, like how history teaches us progressivism is bad because Greeks and Romans fell. (So those who conquered them, did not?) It is just nonsensical cherrypicking of evidence then you wrap it up with statements "one thing history has shown". LMAO. I call you out on this and you make up some bullshit reasoning l like the response above. Or it is that I am an "ideologue" who can't understand others who aren't one.

Like I said before, when two people are having a conversation on the internet and one person says, "I know you despite the fact I have never even met you, and I know because you are Jewish you don't really mean what you say anyways despite all prior evidence indicating you do mean exactly what you say" the conversation kind of ends right there.

[ErickAA]

[QUOTE=donkdowndonedied;754024]

So list all these first world countries that are currently colonizing and displacing people? Yes, we know history. Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean you have to accept it in the future. Again, horrible dub, as shit logic.

But carry on with more of it.

Two extremely low hanging fruit examples are Russia and China. There doesn't seem to be much of an anti-China boycott, divestment and sanctions movement going on here or anywhere else that I can see. Ironically, China has its own issues with Muslims in their Western areas and takes care of things very heavy handedly with little/no concern for human rights (They do this with a lot of different groups of people).

But no-one is going to say anything, because China will just say FU and the conversation ends there. But with Israel, there is a lot of political capital to be gained taking a stand against them.

[gimmick]

One is about choosing customers and the other is about choosing partners. One is discrimination and the other one isn't.

I am curious what your definition of the word discrimination is? It appears you presented an argument exactly why it is discrimination. I even highlighted the word you used which is a synonym of discrimination.

I think what you mean is that one form of discrimination is legal and perhaps even the morally correct decision, and the other is neither.

No, choosing is not synonymous with discrimination. You can have preferences without it being discrimination.

With the bakery thing not serving customers based on belonging to a group they dislike is discrimination. The same bakery choosing to only have business partners that are Christians isn't discrimination. Also, if their advertisement only depicts Anglo Saxon Christians enjoying heterosexual cake, it's still not discrimination.

Fox News doesn't discriminate against Democrats by not including Democrat friendly programming. The GOP doesn't discriminate against Democrats by not having Democrats as members. The State of Israel doesn't discriminate by giving citizenship to people that can prove they are Jewish.

[ErickAA]

I am curious what your definition of the word discrimination is? It appears you presented an argument exactly why it is discrimination. I even highlighted the word you used which is a synonym of discrimination.

I think what you mean is that one form of discrimination is legal and perhaps even the morally correct decision, and the other is neither.

No, choosing is not synonymous with discrimination. You can have preferences without it being discrimination.

With the bakery thing not serving customers based on belonging to a group they dislike is discrimination. The same bakery choosing to only have business partners that are Christians isn't discrimination. Also, if their advertisement only depicts Anglo Saxon Christians enjoying heterosexual cake, it's still not discrimination.

Fox News doesn't discriminate against Democrats by not including Democrat friendly programming. The GOP doesn't discriminate against Democrats by not having Democrats as members. The State of Israel doesn't discriminate by giving citizenship to people that can prove they are Jewish.

Ok. What is your definition of the term discrimination then that is consistent with these examples? I am genuinely curious.

[gimmick]

No, choosing is not synonymous with discrimination. You can have preferences without it being discrimination.

With the bakery thing not serving customers based on belonging to a group they dislike is discrimination. The same bakery choosing to only have business partners that are Christians isn't discrimination. Also, if their advertisement only depicts Anglo Saxon Christians enjoying heterosexual cake, it's still not discrimination.

Fox News doesn't discriminate against Democrats by not including Democrat friendly programming. The GOP doesn't discriminate against Democrats by not having Democrats as members. The State of Israel doesn't discriminate by giving citizenship to people that can prove they are Jewish.

Ok. What is your definition of the term discrimination then that is consistent with these examples? I am genuinely curious.

If, it helps we can say that i'm going with legal/civil law definition of the word. The only one that's been used widely in the last 30 years.

Somewhere along the lines of group based prejudice that causes harm.

Ps. Russia and China are not first world countries

[ErickAA]

Ps. Russia and China are not first world countries

Whether China fits the strict definition of a first world country (and whether this is even relevant regardless) isn't really something that matters too much. Suffice to say, the main crux is that the supposed concern for human rights violations in Israel is very political in nature and IMO very insincere. I don't think most of the countries who are constantly attacking Israel in the UN care one whit for human rights, and their motivations are purely political.

I guess you can argue that Israel is a white nation and should be held to a higher standard. This is the argument donkdown and others have made. But I don't really believe in the implicit assumption of white moral superiority this argument supposes. If you do, that is fine. We will have to just agree to disagree.

[gimmick]

Ps. Russia and China are not first world countries

Whether China fits the strict definition of a first world country (and whether this is even relevant regardless) isn't really something that matters too much. Suffice to say, the main crux is that the supposed concern for human rights violations in Israel is very political in nature and IMO very insincere. I don't think most of the countries who are constantly attacking Israel in the UN care one whit for human rights, and their motivations are purely political.

I guess you can argue that Israel is a white nation and should be held to a higher standard. This is the argument donkdown and others have made. But I don't really believe in the implicit assumption of white moral superiority this argument supposes. If you do, that is fine. We will have to just agree to disagree.

Pretty sure my only argument was that Russia and China are not first world countries. China isn't a first world country by any definition and Russia can maybe get on 1 out 10 lists of countries that are kinda developed. When it comes to examples of first world countries they really don't cut it and that's kinda relevant for examples of first world countries.

But while we are at it i don't believe in the concept of holding to a higher standard for anything. One set of rules and one method of scoring for everyone.

[donkdowndonedied]

Well the US has little use for Russia and their policies. We actually support Israel so we can demand more. Not sure Russia is a good example. I am curious about China and their Muslims. I'll have to look into it.

So are there any other countries the US supports financially that behave in the manner Israel does? I won't use first world country, thats a weird thing to define.

So Verm? Is there? Or are you just irrationally pro-Israel even though you *believe* you aren't ?

[limitles]

I pay no attention to any SJW issues but that may change. Prior to the start of the Beverly Hills theme song coming on the station ran a warming for kids, i guess, saying this a parody and you can’t sue for us