Capco

https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/

The vast majority of people are products of their environment. If you want fewer bad people then we need to improve the environments that create them.

So you don't trust BLM because they support the very unoriginal notion that it takes a village to raise a child? Because they believe the level of individualism is too great and the level of community is too little in this country? These are not at all new concepts, or even radical ones. Geesh.

(I posted this in another thread a couple days ago) Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's where our two parties lie on a complete left-right spectrum of the major political parties in the world. If you drew a line connecting those two highlighted dots and found their midpoint (i.e. the middle of America), it would fall quite far to the right of the center as defined by the aggregate political policies of the entire world. The United States is one of the most right wing industrialized nations in the world. You can see how our "left" is barely to the left of center.

Are you saying that Americans should tolerate fascism in their society? Because it's the fascists that Antifa are "suppressing" or fighting against. The US Army, Navy, and Army Air Forces were not showing fascist tendencies when they suppressed the fascism of Italy, Germany, and Japan during WWII. Suppression of the opposition isn't something that's exclusive to fascism, either.

Well, it was Buffalo716 who was using those labels, not I. Are you saying that he's an idiot then?

According to what quantitative metrics? A bunch of politicians chanting "America is the freest place on Earth" doesn't make it so.

It's not my responsibility to be able to decipher your words because of your medical history. What you type is the only thing I can go off of. Would you like to clarify what you meant? Because it was a very strange post to comprehend.

The guy literally just said to be against fascism is itself fascist, and your response to me is this?

Not gonna lie, but this might be one of the dumbest posts I've read here in a long time. And this thread is already filled with dumb posts... and I'm only on page 2 of the thread.

@JoshAllenHasBigHands Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's where our two parties lie on a complete left-right spectrum of the major political parties in the world. If you drew a line connecting those two highlighted dots and found their midpoint (i.e. the middle of America), it would fall quite far to the right of the center as defined by the aggregate political policies of the entire world. The United States is one of the most right wing industrialized nations in the world.

I didn't do a single extra-curricular thing in high school, including sports.

You just earned a ton of brownie points. Have a good day Koko.

Well, that's one way to keep your head firmly planted in the sand.

This.

I think you're right about this being the better way to approach racially motivated crimes (when provable, of course). In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights, because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment. https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-was-significance-court-ruling-wisconsin-v-468966

Haha we both just posted about motives. But if motive can't be proven in a court of law to a jury of our peers, then why is that part of our system of law (i.e. hate crimes)? At some level motive can (but not always) be established, and racially motivated crimes are no different. I read the article about racial slurs being used during the attack. If I was on a jury and the prosecution was using that as part of the evidence to establish racially motivated intent, those racial slurs would have spoken volumes to me.

None of that data says anything about motive for those crimes. On its own it's meaningless. But you already knew that I'm sure.

Just to be clear, are you saying that you agree or disagree with the notion that attacking someone based on the color of their skin is NOT a form of racial discrimination?

We're already past the video Jim. But thank you for your contribution.

I think most of us here have heard of redlining by now. Redlining, despite being outlawed for decades, still has lingering effects within the black community. Those effects could be curtailed with new legislation. Why do you think that situation isn't in need of a political remedy?

A completely reasonable take even if we disagree about systemic racism. For the record, I don't believe it is running through ALL agencies and aspects of our societies. But it's certainly prevalent at various points in specific institutions (imo).

I agree. Now I'd like Rob to correct himself and say the same thing.

So then, this situation aside (since the motives are debatable), do you also believe that racial discrimination (such as attacking people for the color of their skin) ended at some point during the 20th century?