DescentBB

Take a guess:

At least on college campuses.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schw ... 92142.html

Republicans probably would have self-described themselves similarly after Obama was elected. In any case, if tolerance is something you really care about Thunderbunny, you could start by modifying some of your own behavior. But when people are intolerant, they always justify it with some excuse.

*posts about tolerance*

*is deathly afraid of brown people who worship God in a slightly-different way*

Top Gun wrote:*is deathly afraid of brown people who worship God in a slightly-different way*

.....................^
.....................^
.....................^

Liberal leftist racism in action.

"brown people?" Really?

If you are too ★■◆●ing dense to detect the use of blatant sarcasm to express a rhetorical point, then you should not be legally allowed to leave your house without wearing a helmet. ★■◆●ing hell.

Seriously, do your entire species a favor and move to a cave in the middle of nowhere. We will all thank you for your contribution.

Top Gun wrote:If you are too ★■◆●ing dense to detect the use of blatant sarcasm to express a rhetorical point, then you should not be legally allowed to leave your house without wearing a helmet. ★■◆●ing hell.

I'm sure you "think" you're being sarcastic, but you're certainly a racist.

Leftists only see the color of someone's skin or a "group" someone supposedly belongs to than an actual individual human being.

By the way, I'm one of those "brown people" you love to refer to- you privileged white boy.

Nightshade wrote:Leftists only see the color of someone's skin or a "group" someone supposedly belongs to than an actual individual human being.

You attack people of certain groups all the time. It's only when someone tries defending those groups that you suddenly take issue with referring to people by groups.

Nightshade wrote:Leftists only see the color of someone's skin or a "group" someone supposedly belongs to than an actual individual human being.

Ironically stated in a thread you started to discuss how a "group" is somehow wrong.

By the way, I'm one of those "brown people" you love to refer to- you privileged white boy.

And if we've learned anything from you, it's that "brown people" can certainly be racist. Right?

*edit

On topic, I've lived with plenty of people who held different political views on various issues. Granted, we're talking California/Bay Area where the range goes from crusty hippy to libertarian, and most of those I've lived with were also a product of the same environment. Politics generally haven't played into my comfort level with roommates, likely because there aren't a lot of beliefs I hold very strongly, and there's usually been agreement or at least understanding on the ones that I do. And vice versa.

I would probably have issues with a roommate who persistently berated my political opinions out of some tribal political affiliation. I tend to separate individual political views from the national political landscape. It's a bit silly that we reduce the myriad views on the myriad issues into one of two groups.

Now here's something more interesting along these same lines. Portland Oregon has had a parade every spring called the "Rose Festival". Every year, the Multnomah Country Republican Party, or MCRP, has marched in the parade. No issues, no problems, for years. Everything was amicable. This year however, someone emailed a threat that if the MCRP entered the parade, there would be violence towards them. So naturally, the organizers decided to use some discretion and cancel the parade, instead of having violence occur a parade put on for families and children. The GOP response.

https://oregon.gop/anarchists-threaten- ... -multcogop

“The road to fascism begins with armed gangs of thugs using violence to shut down opposing points of view. The question now is whether the City of Portland will be complicit in such conduct. We hope the City’s new leadership has the courage to respond to these threats appropriately.”

Really? Perhaps you should start looking in your own mirror, as I will explain below.

So my initial question was why would the act of the MCRP marching in the parade cause someone to send such a violent a threat? Seems kind of crazy, right? We've lived together for a long time. After doing some searching, it's now become apparent. It appears that members of the Neo-Nazis and anti-immigrant hate groups were going to be marching right alongside the MCRP members. If it was a rumor, it should have been squelched by the MCRP. If true, the MCRP deserves derision and the blame.

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/avenue-of ... /434090945

Needless to say, the Direct Action Alliance liberal group was blamed for the original threat and has since denied they sent it.

Jacob Bureros of Direct Action Alliance emailed a statement to KGW about the cancellation.

"We are disappointed that the Avenue of Roses Parade has been cancelled. As members of this community, we prize our neighborhood events and support events that promote community. Known members of neo-nazi and anti immigrant hate groups planned to attend the group that was being hosted by the Multnomah County Republicans at the parade. We intended to stand between them and those who they wanted to intimidate. We intended to block out their hate and shut down their violence."

In a later email response:

"We condemn the erroneous reporting by mainstream news media outlets that link our organization to the letter that is being cited as the cause for the cancellation of this parade. It has resulted in countless amounts of death threats and intimidation directed at me and my family.

"Direct Action Alliance and those affiliated with this group did not publish, produce or distribute the letter in question.

"We are members of this community and like the Republican Party, our members have participated in past parades without incident.

"It is unfortunate that some people choose to blame our organization for the cancellation of this event."

What gets me is why would the MCRP even sanction having some extremists march within or alongside their group? If they didn't sanction it, why not come out a say that? Instead, they blamed anarchists and liberal thugs. And IF Republicans actually believe that supposed radical liberal groups are showing intolerance towards Neo-Nazis and anti-immigrant groups and that's a bad thing, somewhere along the line we as a free nation have become seriously screwed up. Of course we should be showing extreme intolerance towards Nazis. For crying out loud, we fought a world war to kill the supreme Nazi leader and forever kill the whole idea of Nazism. Never should it rise again. It's a pox on humanity. Why in the hell are Republicans even slightly, wink, wink, aligning themselves with these bastards, even just a little bit? It's downright sick. Same goes with anti-immigrant groups. For cripes sake, this nation is made up of immigrants.

This is the kind of topic I'd rather much discuss around a campfire with friends.

On here, it's a ★■◆●ing waste.

Jeff250 wrote:

Nightshade wrote:Leftists only see the color of someone's skin or a "group" someone supposedly belongs to than an actual individual human being.

You attack people of certain groups all the time. It's only when someone tries defending those groups that you suddenly take issue with referring to people by groups.

There's a key difference. I don't generalize or group people by race no matter how much leftists want me (and all of humanity) to.

Ideology is something completely different. There is no "muslim race" anymore than there is an "atheist race" - but there are key beliefs that they hold which may prove to be a threat to our civilization.

To have race injected into an ideology is ridiculous and racist in itself.

"*is deathly afraid of brown people who worship God in a slightly-different way*" is a very racist thing to say- and spoken by a self-hating leftist white guy would be hilarious were it not so sad and dangerous.

This is basically what happens when leftists find out you're not "one of them":

You are so utterly clueless it's goddamn hilarious. Just what sort of fucked-up bubble have you spent your life in?

Cue ridiculous meaningless animal-like scream*

Top Gun wrote:*You are so utterly clueless it's goddamn hilarious. Just what sort of fucked-up bubble have you spent your life in?

Nightshade wrote:There's a key difference. I don't generalize or group people by race no matter how much leftists want me (and all of humanity) to.

Ideology is something completely different. There is no "muslim race" anymore than there is an "atheist race" - but there are key beliefs that they hold which may prove to be a threat to our civilization.

To have race injected into an ideology is ridiculous and racist in itself.

"*is deathly afraid of brown people who worship God in a slightly-different way*" is a very racist thing to say- and spoken by a self-hating leftist white guy would be hilarious were it not so sad and dangerous.

Even I don't have the equipment necessary to climb a bull★■◆● mountain this high. If for some reason I did bother, I would spend half a day digging out quotes of you doing just that and it would be four pages long.

Nightshade wrote:Cue ridiculous meaningless animal-like scream*

Top Gun wrote:*You are so utterly clueless it's goddamn hilarious. Just what sort of fucked-up bubble have you spent your life in?

[Deleted - Insulting Personal Diatribe]

Yea, on what planet is that?

Nightshade wrote:There's a key difference. I don't generalize or group people by race

who the ★■◆● cares how you care to parse it? You try to be divisive around artificially constructed and ill-defined 'groups' on a daily basis.

Poor NS, just can't seem to get on the right side of the thought police.

Ferno wrote:This is the kind of topic I'd rather much discuss around a campfire with friends.

On here, it's a ★■◆●ing waste.

You sure about that? Campfire = sharp sticks, melted marshmallows and hot embers at the ready near people having a charged political discussion.

Spidey wrote:Poor NS, just can't seem to get on the right side of the thought police.

Maybe this explains it. Fear of those who are different from him puts him outside his comfort zone.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... tives-dont

Spidey wrote:Poor NS, just can't seem to get on the right side of the thought police.

trying to get on any side of an imaginary item is an exercise in futility.

I sometimes wish people like you were a figment of my imagination.

Tunnelcat wrote:You sure about that? Campfire = sharp sticks, melted marshmallows and hot embers at the ready near people having a charged political discussion.

I see what you're saying there but an evening campfire has this real calming effect. All the pent-up energy from the day is already burnt off.

Nightshade wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:

Nightshade wrote:Leftists only see the color of someone's skin or a "group" someone supposedly belongs to than an actual individual human being.

You attack people of certain groups all the time. It's only when someone tries defending those groups that you suddenly take issue with referring to people by groups.

There's a key difference. I don't generalize or group people by race no matter how much leftists want me (and all of humanity) to.

Ideology is something completely different. There is no "muslim race" anymore than there is an "atheist race" - but there are key beliefs that they hold which may prove to be a threat to our civilization.

If you have anything more to say about Top Gun's misguided comment, then you can talk to him about it. Right now I am talking to you about yours. You accused others of generalizing others "by the color of someone's skin or a 'group' someone supposedly belongs to [rather] than an actual individual human being." In your post above, you say that you do not generalize by race. This might be true, as I cannot recall offhand you ever explicitly making a racist remark. But this only defends you against the first of your two criteria, by "the color of someone's skin." The second, generalizing by "a group someone supposedly belongs to," it seems to me that you are still guilty of on a regular basis.

let's be honest. For FAR too long, the typical TB/NS post comes off as this level of seriousness, and I treat it the same:

oh, and yes, the site is pure satire.

Nightshade wrote:

This proves two things: one - the both of you literally can't take a joke, and two - the both of you actually take Colbert seriously.

Ferno wrote:This proves two things: one - the both of you literally can't take a joke, and two - the both of you actually take Colbert seriously.

It's a bit of a joke- but there is a very disturbing thing here...at least to me. In all of my years I hadn't seen such a blatantly partisan hack disguised as a comedian on late night TV.

Colbert seems almost 100% political and 100% leftist/democrat. Seth Meyers isn't much better. It's almost like watching leftist state-approved propaganda.

Johnny Carson didn't force his politics on people and neither did Letterman nor Leno (till much much later- and in a very subdued manner.)

Carson, Leno and Letterman weren't totally apolitical in their humor- but they at least were relatively balanced in their jabs at politicians and political parties.

Trump is a very easy target, and I do AGREE that you can't polish that turd...but Colbert and his ilk would attack any republican (or independent party or individual that opposes 'progressive' dogma) with equal zeal.

While you may think you refuted my point, you in fact -- proved it.

you do know he's been doing this sort of thing for ten years, right? He started ripping on politicians in 1997 when he got his start on the daily show.

But you already knew that, didn't you. And you were fine with it when he was making Obama/Clinton jokes.

Thunderbunny wrote:Trump is a very easy target, and I do AGREE that you can't polish that turd...but Colbert and his ilk would attack any republican (or independent party or individual that opposes 'progressive' dogma) with equal zeal.

Political ideology didn't stop comedians from ripping on Bill Clinton. The reason why comedians make fun of Donald Trump so much is because jokes about him are so easy to write.

I've heard conservatives whine that liberals get to tell all the crude and nasty jokes they want at the expense of Repub presidents and get away with it while conservatives are the ones who get lambasted and pilloried for doing the very same thing to Dem presidents. True? What I want to know is can conservatives actually come up with some great jokes that are actually funny and hit home? I sure haven't heard any lately. Maybe their problem is that the conservative mindset is so stilted and repressed, they don't know how to actually make a good joke? If any conservatives here have a good one, let's hear it.

I guess there was Dennis Miller, but last I checked he's night manager at a Chili's? Does Larry the Cable Guy count as a comedian?

I've read that a good joke should hit up, not down, i.e., attack people who are more powerful than you, not less. Contrary to there being some sort of insidious double standard, I think that's why both a liberal and a conservative can tell a joke using the same reference but because of the differing target, the one will be funny and the other will seem offensive. Liberals as a tendency blame their problems on people more powerful than them (corporations, the 1%, etc.), whereas conservatives as a tendency blame their problems on people less powerful than them (poor, immigrants, minorities, etc.). The former group is ripe for mocking, whereas mocking the latter group would seem cruel.

And you've just succinctly explained why conservatives can't tell a joke. Instead, this is what they do when they can't take a joke and they're in the seat of power.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... putin-joke

Jeff250 wrote:I've read that a good joke should hit up, not down, i.e., attack people who are more powerful than you, not less. Contrary to there being some sort of insidious double standard, I think that's why both a liberal and a conservative can tell a joke using the same reference but because of the differing target, the one will be funny and the other will seem offensive. Liberals as a tendency blame their problems on people more powerful than them (corporations, the 1%, etc.), whereas conservatives as a tendency blame their problems on people less powerful than them (poor, immigrants, minorities, etc.). The former group is ripe for mocking, whereas mocking the latter group would seem cruel.

Exactly; this is the very concept of privilege. People in a position of power are going to naturally be the butt of jokes due to their fame and exposure, but given the massive advantages they're granted, it's expected that they're not exactly going to stick. Picking on someone who's in a lower position than you and already has a lot going against them just makes you a dick.

coughHollywoodcoughredneckscough

Spidey wrote:coughHollywoodcoughredneckscough

Please elaborate.

Top Gun wrote:Picking on someone who's in a lower position than you and already has a lot going against them just makes you a dick.

Thus the example...

That still doesn't explain the Hollywood Redneck part Spidey and I've heard some pretty funny stuff from actual comedians who call themselves "rednecks". There's some pretty good trucker-based jokes out there too and I know most truckers aren't liberals.

Someone else with an opinion similar to Jeff250's theory.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-cons ... ever-will/