I am saying you are an exemplar of manipulation via hyper-partisan tactics, — Maw

And you're an exemplar of what; non-partisan tactics? Convince me there's no "hyper" in your modus operandi.

One problem with Steven Pinker's conclusion is that he does not account for spiritual well-being. Knowledge, material wealth, decline in deaths from war, increasing life-expectancy - all great. But there is so much loneliness, poverty of spirit. The now unfashionable Mother Theresa noticed this about Western culture. Enlightenment is about light but not always nourishment. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/139677-the-greatest-disease-in-the-west-today-is-not-tb .

[Delete] @Baden

Thank you, Rene. I see my role here as providing occasional relief from T***p and am glad it is appreciated.

[Delete] @Baden

"Encouraging discrimination against white heterosexual males" is propaganda and false?

Can you give an example of this discrimination? — praxis

Like when a black lesbian female is given the position of professor over a heterosexual white male simply because she is black, lesbian and female, even though she is less competent than her competition.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/04/white-professors-sue-alabama-state-discrimination/25302767/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-professor-was-fired-from-predominantly-black-university-due-to-colour-of-skin-court-rules-a7788171.html

Of course, if you listen to people like @unenlightened, if you're white, you don't have to worry about being picked on with regards to your skin color on the street... except if you happen to live in Pakistan, or you go through the wrong neighbourhood, etc.

When Obama was President and Democrat views prevailed, no one talked about divided America. — Hanover

The thing is though, Democrats pretty much control the Academia and the Media - I mean their narrative is the wider cultural narrative. So when they're in power, they feel that everyone is on their side, so they don't see America as divided. They choose not to listen to others with different views, and they dismiss them as lunatics who don't even deserve to be taken seriously - just like @Maw is trying to dismiss me in this thread.

But when Trump is President, then you have the Media and the Academia on one side, and then Trump and the establishment on the other - suddenly, now there is division, where previously they saw only unity, and Trump and others were dismissed as crackpots.

You can protest endlessly, but they both pedal right-wing conspiracies, cherry-pick science, and rant about "The Left", albeit in differing degrees. — Maw

So there can't be decent right-wing views? Everything that is right-wing is therefore wrong? And you can parrot about the right-wing all day, but they're not allowed to talk about "The Left" because there is no such thing as "The Left". "The Left" just means all decent people who are right by default - actually, your favorite trick, there is no such unity amongst them to call them "The Left". Really, you've just bought into the mainstream propaganda.

That white professors were fired for being white isn't that "discrimination against white heterosexual males" is being encouraged. Your source doesn't justify your claim.

Actual policies of "positive discrimination" would be a better example.

[Delete] @Baden

That white professors were fired for being white isn't that "discrimination against white heterosexual males" is being encouraged. — Michael

Right... that is not discrimination, because they are white and heterosexual on top, so they deserve being fired :confused:

Right... that is not discrimination, because they are white and heterosexual on top, so they deserve being fired — Agustino

I didn't say it wasn't discrimination. I said it wasn't a case of discrimination being encouraged. What they were doing was wrong, and they were punished for it.

So as I said, you need to find examples of actual policies of "positive discrimination" to support your claim that discrimination against white people is being encouraged.

[Delete] @Baden

because they are white and heterosexual on top — Agustino

Actually, in the first source it was a gay couple.

I think you would agree with me that a quota for a 50/50 split in parliament between men and women is stupid. It shouldnt be based on gender, or race, but on merit and skill. — René Descartes

I think in the case of a parliament it should be representative of the populace.

I think in the case of a parliament it should be representative of the populace. — Michael

No. It should be what is best for everyone - if one part of the population can take better decisions because, for whatever reasons, they are the most capable, then they should be the representatives.

No. It should be what is best for everyone - if one part of the population can take better decisions because, for whatever reasons, they are the most capable, then they should be the representatives. — Agustino

Better for who? If the legislators are all tied to big business then they're going to do what's best for big business and not what's best for the lower class. Or if they're all Christian then they're going to do what's best for Christians and not what's best for the LGBT community.

Better for who? If the legislators are all tied to big business then they're going to do what's best for big business and not what's best for the lower class. — Michael

Where did I say they should all be tied to big business?

[Delete] @Baden

Yes!

Where did I say they should all be tied to big business? — Agustino

You didn't, and I didn't say you did. I'm pointing out how useless it is to claim that they'll "do what's best". What's best for one group isn't what's best for another group. And whoever's in charge is, more often than not, going to choose to do what's best for the group they're in.

You didn't, and I didn't say you did. I'm pointing out how useless it is to claim that they'll "do what's best". What's best for one group isn't what's best for another group. — Michael

But not all groups are capable to determine what is best for themselves.

And who decides which group is capable of determining what's best for themselves (and others)?

[Delete] @Baden

[Delete] @Baden

But not all groups are capable to determine what is best for themselves. — Agustino

In particular social conservatists like you. Let's take away your ability to vote just to make you safe.

Of course, if you listen to people like unenlightened, if you're white, you don't have to worry about being picked on with regards to your skin color on the street... except if you happen to live in Pakistan, or you go through the wrong neighbourhood, etc. — Agustino

If you ever listened, you would not hear me say that white people never suffer discrimination. What you would hear me say is that there is a legacy from the past, from the colonisation of the Americas, Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, by (white) Europeans, which was justified by an explicit doctrine of white supremacy. And this doctrine continued explicitly and implicitly through JimCrow laws for example in the US, Racist immigration policy and 'the stolen generation' policies in Australia, Apartheid in S. Africa, and so on and so on. These are things that I remember, they happened in my lifetime, as I remember my aunt and uncle adopting six mixed-race children (along with their own six white kids) because no one else wanted to look after such kids because they were tainted and shameful.

Now you may think that since we started letting black people sit at the front of the bus, all that history is over and done with, apart from a few oddities in pointy hats. But can only think that by covering your eyes and ears to the vast amount of evidence from the media from social scientists, that the attitudes persist, as one would expect them to if one understood the evolution of social attitudes at all.

And a really good example of this persistence is the way, in this very thread, one incident in what the article calls 'a historically black college', of alleged discrimination against whites is taken as of comparable weight to the discrimination against blacks. It is particularly ironic that the black colleges were explicitly set up to educate newly freed slaves who had previously been forbidden by law from being educated.

If you listened to me, you would hear me say that no one is immune from prejudice and partisanship, and anyone can suffer discrimination. But not uniquely, but to a unique extent and extreme, white people have a long long history of justifying invasion, oppression, exploitation, enslavement, and genocide on the grounds of their racial superiority. Probably every culture thinks it's the best, but take a look at the condition of the indigenous people of Australia, India, North and South America, Africa and the blacks in the US, and you see a pattern, and the pattern is not how badly treated and hard done by the white immigrants have been and are. Hey, but every now and then, a white guy gets a bad deal - outrage!

Talking of legacy, here's a fun fact..

So there can't be decent right-wing views? Everything that is right-wing is therefore wrong? — Agustino

Never said that was the case, Agustino. There are certainly decent right-wing views, but they aren't well espoused by Peterson, Shapiro and other hacks. I've also never continuously homogenized "The Right", as you have the "The Left", in order to formulate a weltanschauung. Anyway, enjoy your crackpot theories and acolyte fidelity.

I'm also enjoying the fact that, within the last few hours, you've started to defend a concept that is essentially a "benevolent" dictatorship.

And you're an exemplar of what; non-partisan tactics? Convince me there's no "hyper" in your modus operandi. — Noble Dust

Burden is on you, bud.