Reply to Re: Let's talk power
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
> So if they have all this power, how come they are the poorest people in the country?
Irrelevant strawman. We're discussing power and who ultimately has power and the forms in which it takes. Even so, a lot of Fabulous Lobby members are very rich since they have no children, as are a lot of Fabulous-specific charities that receive funding.
>You call that power? Really?
Yes. I take it that hundreds of companies (including absolutely gigantic ones such as Google and PayPal) rallying around the trans flag simply isn't enough for you. It's a pretty obvious example of how much power the trans agenda has behind it.
> But it's not growing into a super-power, it's growing from zero to still very much below the power of "normal" people
Getting The Boss to completely cancel a concert can't be an easy feat. Very few groups would be able to manage such a thing. They have far more power than what you term "normal" people in terms of an organised group and ideology.
How many have a female CEO? Trans? Muslim? The sum of all of the above is near zero. How is that possible, if those groups have so much power?
That's divisive irrelevant identity politics. Someone who is imbued with power doesn't necessarily have the ability to do whatever they want with it without consequences. Most CEOs for example are accountable to their shareholders, with politicians similarly accountable to their electorates. This is a process known as representation. Through representation, these groups have the ability to exert power through a representative. Therefore simply because a group doesn't have a Fabulous Black Jew, for example, as their CEO doesn't mean they are incapable of representing the Fabulous Black Jews and enacting their demands. Even though a CEO or politician may be a white male with substantial amounts of executive power, he still doesn't necessarily have the chance to forward the ideals of the white male agenda without consequences.
For example the CEO of EA isn't fabulous (he's Australian apparently), however EA has in the past sponsored fabulous charities and have therefore done what the fabulous lobby want them to through the process of representation. The companies that pulled out of NC after that new law are also acting on behalf of trans people by enacting their wishes. Intel also paid $300 million to the diversity racket which they pulled from other areas to finance. That's a very substantial amount, once again showing how much power these groups have. GitHub has implemented a new controversial code of conduct as well which overwhelmingly supports transexuals and bans those who commit wrongthink, once again showing how powerful these groups are ideologically.
>The TV is practically a non-stop stream of Muslim bashing
Most of those people were pretty restrained in what they had to say in that debate, with lots of praise for Muslims being included as well. It wasn't nearly as critical as I thought it would be. Unfortunately Muslims tend to defend their beliefs by blowing themselves up rather than talking about it nicely like we're doing right now. This in no way proves that they lack power, as the act of them talking about it legitimises them as having power and being a potentially subversive group with some degree of power. According to Pew Research, the overwhelming majority of Muslims believe that a wife should submit totally to her husband and that executing homosexuals is a good idea to implement so I find it strange that you'd defend them at all. Don't forget that the current US president is a Muslim.
>Why does that even happen, if the Muslims have so much power?
It would never happen in Australia or Canada or Great Britain, and I doubt it would happen in France after the whole Charlie Hebdo thing. The event was criticised even before it occurred for being provocative. I do admit that Muslims have much more power outside of the USA, and I think you're exaggerating my claim as to how much power they have.
> At a black church in South Carolina, a white christian racist turned up and shot and killed nine people. In Newtown, two non-Muslim insane kids killed a lot of elementary school kids. And I can go on.
That's a strawman. I don't dispute that the Christian lobby and its fundies in the USA have a lot of power. Far more power than in Australia anyway. It was also only one guy in Newtown, CT apparently for the record.
> Why do you blame all of Islam for that subgroup of crazy people, but you don't blame all white people, or all christians, or all men, or all gun owners, for the majority of the shootings?
That's a strawman as well. I don't dispute that the NRA is powerful. Incidentally I had a look, and quite a lot of the significant shootings have been committed by people who aren't white. For example V-Tech was done by a Korean, with several other mass shootings performed by Native Americans. Isla Vista was done by a half-Asian, and Chris Harper-Mercer was half-black. Dylann Roof is almost an outlier in terms of his profile compared to the rest of the major shooters.
Also note that I could flip that question around and ask you why you refuse to have Muslims take responsibility for their actions. Violence is a major facet of Islam and you'd know that if you knew the personal history of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and of course the Abbasids and the Umayyads and Al-Andalus etc.
> You're not claiming that the KKK was a good reason for extra surveillance on European Christians, I hope? Then why is ISIS a reason for doing the same thing to all Muslims?
Another strawman. I never advocated for any sort of surveillance anywhere and never mentioned the KKK.
> All the power that you attribute to the minorities comes from regular people on the internet. But when you do the same thing, it doesn't count?
Most of it comes from major corporations, governments, and people in academia. Particularly in the USA, this college indoctrination is incredibly prevalent and is just about compulsory. I'm simply trying to prove that the groups you claim to be powerless are actually quite influential in many cases.
> So what are you doing right now? Aren't you calling them out on it?
I heavily doubt that you're a Muslim.
>If you believe in them, you have to pick and choose which parts you believe.
That's not an option in Islam. The Koran is literally considered by them to be the word of G-d as given to his Prophet Mohammed. It's not like protestant Christianity.
>If they had real power, they would have money.
That's a No True Scotsman. Power takes a variety of forms and doesn't necessarily present itself as dollars and cents. My point was in regards to Muslims as well so I don't see the relevance.
>Sure they do
> I agree that strictly speaking they aren't "powerless".
Yay! We've reached an agreement.
>you deserve a lot more power
Power to do what exactly? Who determines who deserves power and who doesn't?
>But "the world" is so much against them
This is currently the best time in history to be part of one of the aforementioned groups if you live in the Western world. Elsewhere is a different matter, however.
> By saying they are powerless, I don't mean they cannot do anything
By saying he was blind, I didn't mean that he couldn't see.
by saying i am using blue crayons to colour this dolphin, i don't mean it will have blue in it
Redefining words? Come on dude, you're better than that.
Irrelevant strawman. We're discussing power and who ultimately has power and the forms in which it takes. Even so, a lot of Fabulous Lobby members are very rich since they have no children, as are a lot of Fabulous-specific charities that receive funding.
>You call that power? Really?
Yes. I take it that hundreds of companies (including absolutely gigantic ones such as Google and PayPal) rallying around the trans flag simply isn't enough for you. It's a pretty obvious example of how much power the trans agenda has behind it.
> But it's not growing into a super-power, it's growing from zero to still very much below the power of "normal" people
Getting The Boss to completely cancel a concert can't be an easy feat. Very few groups would be able to manage such a thing. They have far more power than what you term "normal" people in terms of an organised group and ideology.
How many have a female CEO? Trans? Muslim? The sum of all of the above is near zero. How is that possible, if those groups have so much power?
That's divisive irrelevant identity politics. Someone who is imbued with power doesn't necessarily have the ability to do whatever they want with it without consequences. Most CEOs for example are accountable to their shareholders, with politicians similarly accountable to their electorates. This is a process known as representation. Through representation, these groups have the ability to exert power through a representative. Therefore simply because a group doesn't have a Fabulous Black Jew, for example, as their CEO doesn't mean they are incapable of representing the Fabulous Black Jews and enacting their demands. Even though a CEO or politician may be a white male with substantial amounts of executive power, he still doesn't necessarily have the chance to forward the ideals of the white male agenda without consequences.
For example the CEO of EA isn't fabulous (he's Australian apparently), however EA has in the past sponsored fabulous charities and have therefore done what the fabulous lobby want them to through the process of representation. The companies that pulled out of NC after that new law are also acting on behalf of trans people by enacting their wishes. Intel also paid $300 million to the diversity racket which they pulled from other areas to finance. That's a very substantial amount, once again showing how much power these groups have. GitHub has implemented a new controversial code of conduct as well which overwhelmingly supports transexuals and bans those who commit wrongthink, once again showing how powerful these groups are ideologically.
>The TV is practically a non-stop stream of Muslim bashing
Most of those people were pretty restrained in what they had to say in that debate, with lots of praise for Muslims being included as well. It wasn't nearly as critical as I thought it would be. Unfortunately Muslims tend to defend their beliefs by blowing themselves up rather than talking about it nicely like we're doing right now. This in no way proves that they lack power, as the act of them talking about it legitimises them as having power and being a potentially subversive group with some degree of power. According to Pew Research, the overwhelming majority of Muslims believe that a wife should submit totally to her husband and that executing homosexuals is a good idea to implement so I find it strange that you'd defend them at all. Don't forget that the current US president is a Muslim.
>Why does that even happen, if the Muslims have so much power?
It would never happen in Australia or Canada or Great Britain, and I doubt it would happen in France after the whole Charlie Hebdo thing. The event was criticised even before it occurred for being provocative. I do admit that Muslims have much more power outside of the USA, and I think you're exaggerating my claim as to how much power they have.
> At a black church in South Carolina, a white christian racist turned up and shot and killed nine people. In Newtown, two non-Muslim insane kids killed a lot of elementary school kids. And I can go on.
That's a strawman. I don't dispute that the Christian lobby and its fundies in the USA have a lot of power. Far more power than in Australia anyway. It was also only one guy in Newtown, CT apparently for the record.
> Why do you blame all of Islam for that subgroup of crazy people, but you don't blame all white people, or all christians, or all men, or all gun owners, for the majority of the shootings?
That's a strawman as well. I don't dispute that the NRA is powerful. Incidentally I had a look, and quite a lot of the significant shootings have been committed by people who aren't white. For example V-Tech was done by a Korean, with several other mass shootings performed by Native Americans. Isla Vista was done by a half-Asian, and Chris Harper-Mercer was half-black. Dylann Roof is almost an outlier in terms of his profile compared to the rest of the major shooters.
Also note that I could flip that question around and ask you why you refuse to have Muslims take responsibility for their actions. Violence is a major facet of Islam and you'd know that if you knew the personal history of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and of course the Abbasids and the Umayyads and Al-Andalus etc.
> You're not claiming that the KKK was a good reason for extra surveillance on European Christians, I hope? Then why is ISIS a reason for doing the same thing to all Muslims?
Another strawman. I never advocated for any sort of surveillance anywhere and never mentioned the KKK.
> All the power that you attribute to the minorities comes from regular people on the internet. But when you do the same thing, it doesn't count?
Most of it comes from major corporations, governments, and people in academia. Particularly in the USA, this college indoctrination is incredibly prevalent and is just about compulsory. I'm simply trying to prove that the groups you claim to be powerless are actually quite influential in many cases.
> So what are you doing right now? Aren't you calling them out on it?
I heavily doubt that you're a Muslim.
>If you believe in them, you have to pick and choose which parts you believe.
That's not an option in Islam. The Koran is literally considered by them to be the word of G-d as given to his Prophet Mohammed. It's not like protestant Christianity.
>If they had real power, they would have money.
That's a No True Scotsman. Power takes a variety of forms and doesn't necessarily present itself as dollars and cents. My point was in regards to Muslims as well so I don't see the relevance.
>Sure they do
> I agree that strictly speaking they aren't "powerless".
Yay! We've reached an agreement.
>you deserve a lot more power
Power to do what exactly? Who determines who deserves power and who doesn't?
>But "the world" is so much against them
This is currently the best time in history to be part of one of the aforementioned groups if you live in the Western world. Elsewhere is a different matter, however.
> By saying they are powerless, I don't mean they cannot do anything
By saying he was blind, I didn't mean that he couldn't see.
by saying i am using blue crayons to colour this dolphin, i don't mean it will have blue in it
Redefining words? Come on dude, you're better than that.
