God DAMN look at how some Conservatives went up to bat for the "free speech" of this attention-seeking sick kid-toucher because he learned the right corny lines to say.
The spin-job on this one which will likely be along the lines of "well he's actually your guy because gays are predators and that's what the gays you support do" is going to require a rationalization of such epic proportions that I'm giddy as a schoolgirl waiting on it.
"Guy Benson, the writer and radio host, who also happens to be gay, wrote on Twitter that Mr. Yiannopoulos seemed to have been 'designed in a laboratory in order to perpetuate some of the ugliest stereotypes about gays and conservatives.'"
All the GLBT..etc I've know have been perfectly fine.. Well not perfect, but the same as everyone else. Women, Men.. and every other mixture... There's some small fraction of assholes and angles in every group... at least that's my first assumption.
OK to be honest, I think women may be better than men. (of course I love women, but only like you guys.)
The couple of gay blokes I've known or worked with have also been ok, in fact I'd probably go so far as to say they were better people than most I've know from the non-gay population.
You have a penchant for making predictions of what conservatives will say or what they want or think. You just don't have a clue what they think.
Who cares what that Vanilla Ice look-alike says? If Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams or Victor Davis Hanson said it, then you would take little notice because the idiot media wouldn't take much notice. So why are you paying attention to the idiot media? If you truly want to know what conservatives think you should read some intelligent conservatives.
I see no conservatives rationalizing it. You're imagining that they do. To an extent you can rationalize a victim of such abuse downplaying it because he still hasn't come to terms with his own experience, and then you should have sympathy, but all the more reason to ignore his commentary.
Milo got his head too much into the "I can say anything I wanna say and people will still love me, I just speak my mind when I want!" mindset and got strike-oned for his arrogance.
It's weird that when someone is too honest it actually makes them abusive. It doesn't entirely make sense from a logical perspective, but some social calibration is required to understand these things.
The ones around here seem to say exactly what's on their minds all the time - should I expect something different? Is there a secret knowledge of which I am unaware
A good concern-troll attempt at painting me as the insensitive one, just not empathetic enough about poor Milo's "victimhood status."
That was inserted after the first line of the paragraph - I've restored the rest of the paragraph. Tom Del Rosso clearly doesn't bother paying any att ention to what non-conservatives actually say.
Unfortunately, even intelligent conservatives have an enthusiasm for believ ing total nonsense. Even with a perfect system of logic, false premises gen erate faulty conclusions.
There don't seem to be all that many intelligent conservatives, and most of them seem to use their intelligence to churn out the nonsense that dumber conservatives like to hear.
The proposition that gays are predators doesn't line up with my observation s. I've not seen all that many predatory hetrosexuals either, but there are a lot more hetrosexuals around, so I can imagine that sexual predators of either orientation are rare. So are successful stand-up comedians.
Unawareness in abundance, but not about secrets. You choose to judge an ideology by its association with strident people, and ignore its association with anyone else like the people I mentioned.
The idiot media makes it into an argument about Trump's statement about Sweeden's problem instead of the problem itself. This is complemented by denial that the problem is real, and the straw man argument about whether it was something that happened in Sweeden "yesterday" or some other day.
No it doesn't work like that because that's not at all what I meant, but you're intractable in this penchant for incorrectly reading conservative minds. I simply said that there might be a way to rationalize his statement, if anyone actually did, but I haven't seen anyone do so. I said sympathy would go together with ignoring his commentary, but you choose not to ignore him either. You choose to ignore intelligent and thoughtful conservatives instead. I sincerely find it sad and pathetic that you interpreted what I said that way, but you seem inclined to believe I'm not sincere.
The fact that Trump believed nonsense that got pushed out by Fox News is a problem. Sweden has problems - like everybody else coping with Syrian refug ees, but not on the scale or of the nature that the right wing press likes to proclaim - but demonising Muslims isn't any kind of solution.
The "problem", as present by Fox News, isn't real. Trump's latching onto fa ke news is a real problem.
Rather begging the question of whether conservatives have minds to read. Th ey act more like automata remotely programmed by Fox News.
Conservatives who you identify as intelligent and thoughtful, and most othe rs identify as people skilled at telling their primary audience what the au dience wants to hear.
Sincerity is an over-rated virtue. If you sincerely believe fatuous nonsens e you are marginally more dangerous than those who peddle it for political advantage, while appreciating that it is nonsense.
That's what's worrying about Trump. If his tendency to say different and co ntradictory things at different moments was just a conscious scheme to buy popularity, he could be expected to settled down with a self-consistent wor ld view when he finally made it to the presidency. He isn't doing that, and it looks very much as if he changes his sincerely held opinions every time he is playing to a different audience. That makes him an unpredictable lun atic.
They might beleive that human beings are *an* infection of the living body of the earth, if they were silly enough to believe that planet as a whole constituted a living body.
Human being do form part of the planet's biosphere, and their numbers have increased a lot over the last thousand years.
They've been around for about 200,000 years, and they are definitely a natual part of the biosphere, so "infection" probably isn't the right word.
Why that particular majority might share my opinion escapes me.
You haven't identified your "intelligent and thoughtful" conservatives yet. You probably mean "articulate" but do come up with at least one actual example, if you can.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.