The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right

Sorry Faith but once again reality simply shows you are posting nonsense. Marxism does not ultimately promote murder and you are just making another stupid innuendo.It is as honest to say Christianity is a hate purveyor that always ultimately promotes murder.

Those things exist in our society. If you do not see it then it is because you have white privilege and christian privilege.Are black people lying when they show oppression and persecution? Are jews and muslims lying when their mosques and synagogues are burned and vandalized. Are hispanics lying when they are questioned because of how they look and their name? Are trans people lying when they are forced to use bathrooms that don't match their gender identity and gender looks? Are atheists lying when they are not allowed to speak at public meetings?Your privilege blinds you and/or makes you into a liar.

No they don't really exist, it's all made up. It's a lie and a dangerous lie. You need to use other terms for what you are describing because the blanket Marxist terms are false and incendiary. We're supposed to be a melting pot not a seethihg mass of warring factions which is what Marxism creates. There has never been such racial conflict in this country as has been drummed up over the last eight years by the Left.

Riiiight. But, just to check, you white heterosexual Christians really are being oppressed, aren't you? Unlike everyone else. Words fail me but fortunately they are unnecessary.

You are a troll.

I thought I might show some rather famous, pictures of stuff Faith claims never happened, but most folks know actually did occur. Hopefully someone will step up and show that these things are photo-shopped fakery and that Faith's startling statements represent the truth. I do, of course, have an alternative hypothesis about reality.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Sorry, meant since the Civil Rights era of course. Things have been getting better since then but Obama stirred it all up again.And the white privilege stuff is destructive propaganda, contrary to the spirit of MLK and the spirit of the melting pot.; It prevents dealing with people as individuals and problems in reality rather than by a fake blanket explanation for everything. It promotes race division and hatred. That's Marxism, that's not America.

During the Rodney King riots when Bush Sr. was President 2000 people were injured and 55 people were killed. Imagine how delighted conservatives would have been if this had happened when Obama was President. But it didn't. Some might suggest that it's the existence of white privilege that's "contrary to the spirit of MLK and the spirit of the melting pot". But no, according to you, it's mentioning its existence that MLK wouldn't approve of. Perhaps you live in an alternate reality where he said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where no-one will object or even so much as mention it if they are judged by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character."

But I do know what totalitarian means, maybe "cheeky" is a good word for this.To use the dictionary's terms: I see people subordinating their individual selves to a centralized authoritarian and autocratic hierarchy to control personal aspects of their lives. They're looking to the federal government to help them figure out which bathrooms people should use, for crying out loud. And from that message:

quote:

---

Well, it is a bit hyperbolic, but I don't think that it's completely inapt. And its the approach, or the mentality, that I am calling totalitarian - not the laws.

---

It's not federal laws in general that I have a problem with. Title IX is great. It's being outraged because you cannot rely on the feds for guidance on things like which bathroom choices people should make that I think is far enough to call totalitarian - even if technically the usage of the word is not strictly correct.I'd prefer free individuals interacting over an authority dictating behavior, not visa versa.

That's like pointing to the First Amendment and saying: "They're looking to the federal government to help them figure out who should have freedom of speech, for crying out loud."

No, not at all. The first amendment prevents the federal government from violating a preexisting right. It limits the government rather than giving it more authority.It doesn't identify people's characteristics and tell people how to behave. All it does is say what congress cannot do.That's the opposite of these guidelines and the mentality of expecting the federal government to advise you on which bathrooms people should use.

Conserva world is a scary thing up is down down is up.You do realize that the Federal guidance on bathroom rules was because there were laws states were passing restricting bathroom use.So are you saying there is no preexistent right to use bathrooms? but here is for free speech.This whole preexisting right thing is a red herring. We have discussed this before. There are no rights without codification by a government, no matter what words they use. There was no preexisting right to free speech in the boundaries of the USA before the ratification of the Constitution.

You'll need to support that because that's not what the guidance, itself, says.

quote:

---

In recent years, we have received an increasing number of questions from parents, teachers, principals, and school superintendents about civil rights protections for transgender students.

---

Too, only one state passed a law restricting bathroom use *before the guidance was issued (abe for pedantry).Edited by New Cat's Eye, : see *

You're struggling with vocabulary, but the real story here is that what you and Faith are doing is name-calling, and the name doesn't fit. This whole thread is just an excuse for calling the left names. What if someone calls the right anarchistic. Does calling the right an ugly name really help? Does it help improve mutual understanding? Does the discussion make better progress? And others don't. Just because there are different philosophies of government doesn't mean they exist at the extremes of anarchy and despotism. To whom other than government (not necessarily the federal government, but of course ultimately the federal government) should little girls being directed to the men's bathroom look (or vice versa)? You're like a broken record. So others could say the right is anarchical because they want us to live in a world where who has the might is right, making this a fair use of the word, even though technically the usage is absurd. So would everybody, but to expect it is naive, to require it anarchic.--Percy

And a number more in the legislative pipeline, as has been mentioned before. Now that Trump has rescinded the Obama guidelines, these states are free to resume formulating legislation that tells people what bathrooms they can use, all of it unfriendly to LGBT's.--Percy