You have to admit though, there is something grandiose about these claims of voting fraud.

On a long term basis I would imagine that hatred of others comes back to oneself. The most obvious case is having committed all the worst atrocities, Hitler killed himself. — Jack Cummins

What if Hitler and other Nazis who committed suicide did so for stoic (sic!) reasons?

I have heard in WWII documentaries that some Nazis who committed suicide around the time of the end of the war wrote in their goodbye letters that they can't bear to live in a world ruled by an inferior race, and that this is why they willingly departed from life.

It's not clear that the Nazis who committed suicide did so out of self-loathing or some such.

The level on which I would think about working with prejudice is if I am in a professional or group situation where prejudices are occurring. What can be tolerated and what goes against boundaries is the main issue.

Which is a clear case of the rule of the turf: the owner of the turf has the say as to what is acceptable and what isn't.

Couldn't find any proof of that. At all. — frank

Because the commies destroyed it, obviously, duh.

It is a difficult question. How does one work with prejudice and hatred.? — Jack Cummins

But why would one have to?

I think the real problem with hatred and prejudice is that one hasn't come to the final conclusion that they are in fact _not_ evolutionarily advantageous.
Don't you ever wonder whether the people who are full of hatred and prejudice might in fact be better off in life after all?
What valuable things are they missing out on because of their hatred and prejudice? I can't think of any.

People who are full of hatred and prejudice can make life hard for some others, indeed. But beyond that, they don't seem to be missing out on anything. Hatred and prejudice aren't the sort of stumbling blocks and negative things as some people paint them to be.

You think you're having a conversation, — Kenosha Kid

They never saw it as a conversation, a dialogue to begin with.

But where is that "free speech and open discussion" supposed to take place?
Every conversation takes place somewhere, on someone's turf, not on some neutral no-man's land.

The rule of the turf takes precedence: the one who owns the turf where the conversation takes place has the say.

What is the use of such speculations?

In a forum discussion long ago, someone proposed to have solved this problem by pointing out that ethics was originally a part of aesthetics, and that it was aesthetics that dictates what is ethical.
How do you feel about this?

This reasoning is tailored after Christian theism. But there are other theisms apart from Christianity (and other Abrahamic religions), for example in Hinduism. In those other theisms, atheism is conceived of differently than in Christianity, and the requirements put forward in favor of theism are different.

In discussions of God and atheism, why give supremacy to Christianity, as if it would have monopoly over theism and all things related to it?

Nope.

"I think if you asked, most parents would say they want their children to be happy, rather than wealthy, recognised, popular or influential."

But what do those parents mean by "happy"?
It seems to me they mean exactly 'wealthy, recognised, popular or influential', they just don't spell it out like this.
How can a person be happy, without also being wealthy, recognised, popular or influential? It's not clear how such is possible.