what does left and right mean?

[TripleA]

Egalitarian ideals

The reality is not all races are equal... Some commits crimes more than others... Some achieve higher levels of education... The balancing act should stop at a point... And liberals drove passed it about 10 years ago

Race itself is a social construct. A black man from Nigeria is different from a black man from Ethiopia. A lot of black people in the U.S. wouldn't be considered black in Brazil. Neymar isn't considered black in Brazil and he is darker than Steph Curry.

[Akrazotile]

Egalitarian ideals

The reality is not all races are equal... Some commits crimes more than others... Some achieve higher levels of education... The balancing act should stop at a point... And liberals drove passed it about 10 years ago

They must always chase after equality. It is their default 'purpose.' Even without understanding WHY they're chasing after it, or what the logistical disconnect to real life is, without understanding anything about what motivates them or what it would actually look like if we somehow achieved this end... It's just what they're gonna do. They just see others on this bandwagon, chasing the equality carrot, so they jump on it too. Monkey see, monkey do. And that's their purpose, their motivation, their way to pass time until they die. Logical? Hardly. But logic is grounded in reality, and to the average awkward, effeminate, pansy lefty... Reality is none too appealing. So idealism it is!

[NumberSix]

Every group DOES now have equal rights in America. But social just warrioring is still as popular as ever. And even if somehow we did satisfy them in terms of demographic equality and 'fairness' (we've already done what we can with laws, the point is that sjw's by nature will never be satisfied) but let's say they are satisfied with how all groups are treated.

See, this is actually not true.

In America, Muslims are a "protected class" whereas golfers aren't. Men who have a sexual preference for men are a "protected class", whereas men who have a sexual preference for blondes aren't.

[Dresta]

The left is certainly not liberal.

And where did idea come from that "change" is automatically liberal? A free market is the definition of liberal. If you are for "changing" that system, you're not a liberal. You're literally advocating for less liberty.

If you're anti-gun rights, you're anti-liberal
If you want to restrict or punish speech, you're anti-liberal
If you want to erode the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", you're anti-liberal
If you don't respect property rights, you're anti-liberal
If you're anti-free market, you're anti-liberal.
If you are for laws applying differently to people, you're anti-liberal


Not only is the left not liberal, they are in many cases, specifically anti-liberal.

And you say you have some liberal and some conservative views as if liberal and conservative are inherently different things. Newsflash, most conservative values in America are in fact liberal. Conservative values in the Muslim world, not so much.

In America, liberal positions like free speech rights and religious freedom rights are conservative values. Wanting "change" is the radical position and anti-liberal.

In the Muslim world, liberal positions like free speech rights and religious freedom rights are radical values. Wanting change is still radical, but pro-liberal.

Being conservative simply means adhering to traditional values. Conserving them. If the traditional values are liberal, conserving them is liberal. Whether change is liberal or not depends on whether the traditional values at hand are liberal or not. Change in itself isn't liberal like some of you seem to think it is.

The opposite of conservative is radical. Not liberal. Liberalism can be either conservative or radical depending on the circumstances.

This couldn't be more true: America was largely founded on Liberal values, and so defending those values came to be seen as conservatism (no one really even used the word in America until the 1950s).

It is difficult with the word liberal, because the term has become so degraded that i think perhaps it's best to leave it dead; the same happened with the word 'libertine' centuries ago, when it used mean what liberal meant a hundred years ago. The word is dead in the meaning you give it, so really, a new word is needed. Let the modern liberal flip the word on its head all they like. I also think Classical Liberalism and modern liberals have much the same values: they both tend to care more about the acquisition of wealth than anything else (one for the individual, the other for re-distribution) - and here is where they contrast with the conservative, who would never make such a concession. America has very few actual conservatives - rather, it's two sets of liberals duking it out and hating each other.

Tis much like how sophist used to be the term for wise man, until they so debased the term that it had to be replaced with 'philosopher.'

[GIF REACTION]

Race itself is a social construct. A black man from Nigeria is different from a black man from Ethiopia. A lot of black people in the U.S. wouldn't be considered black in Brazil. Neymar isn't considered black in Brazil and he is darker than Steph Curry.

The social construction argument has been destroyed so many times... Even way back in the 80's... Just as athleticism is genetics, IQ to an extent is genetic. Race does matter. It is just a really dangerous topic to talk about publicly.

[Dresta]

Race itself is a social construct. A black man from Nigeria is different from a black man from Ethiopia. A lot of black people in the U.S. wouldn't be considered black in Brazil. Neymar isn't considered black in Brazil and he is darker than Steph Curry.

But why is Steph Curry considered black? I don't get this one drop rule in America - seems racist to me.

[Akrazotile]

Race itself is a social construct. A black man from Nigeria is different from a black man from Ethiopia. A lot of black people in the U.S. wouldn't be considered black in Brazil. Neymar isn't considered black in Brazil and he is darker than Steph Curry.

And yet an Ethiopian or a Kenyan will fare better on average than a Nigerian in a marathon.

In the 1900s many different European nationalities migrated to NYC en masse, and jews were appreciably more successful than any other.

Western blacks descended from slaves do better in athletic competition than randomly selected members of the rest of the population.

Traits vary by region and evolutionary circumstance. Taxonomy and the official 'classifications' may be a human construct to a degree, but nature isn't. Traits demonstrably vary by region and evolutionary circumstance.

It's science. It's evolution. Isn't that what lefties are all about filling society with?

[NumberSix]

Race itself is a social construct. A black man from Nigeria is different from a black man from Ethiopia. A lot of black people in the U.S. wouldn't be considered black in Brazil. Neymar isn't considered black in Brazil and he is darker than Steph Curry.

How about age? Is age a social construct?

[Akrazotile]

See, this is actually not true.

In America, Muslims are a "protected class" whereas golfers aren't. Men who have a sexual preference for men are a "protected class", whereas men who have a sexual preference for blondes aren't.

True indeed.

[Akrazotile]

Rational minds owning the shit out of this thread. What a backfire for OP

[GIF REACTION]

Rational minds owning the shit out of this thread. What a backfire for OP

Dream TEAM son. All the guys.

Chewing where you at son!

Destroying team pencil neck day after day after day

[TripleA]

The social construction argument has been destroyed so many times... Even way back in the 80's... Just as athleticism is genetics, IQ to an extent is genetic. Race does matter. It is just a really dangerous topic to talk about publicly.

The way it's used in society it's mostly a social construct.
A Somali is much different than a west African but both would be considered black in the U.S.

[GIF REACTION]

The way it's used in society it's mostly a social construct.
A Somali is much different than a west African but both would be considered black in the U.S.

What are we arguing here?

It is the same for a white or Asian person

I understand the variance for genetic traits based on regional/nationality locale

But the base plain of African heritage and European heritage still plays a part

Both base races have different cranium shapes, both unique to themselves

And here's where the research gets interesting

It's thought that Europeans mixed with Neanderthals whereas the Africans did not nearly as much

The base races does have impact on genetics, clearly

[Akrazotile]

What are we arguing here?

It is the same for a white or Asian person

I understand the variance for genetic traits based on regional/nationality locale

But the base plain of African heritage and European heritage still plays a part

Both base races have different cranium shapes, both unique to themselves

And here's where the research gets interesting

It's thought that Europeans mixed with Neanderthals whereas the Africans did not nearly as much

The base races does have impact on genetics, clearly

Yep, in fact if we classified people the same way we classify the rest of the animal kingdom, then caucasian, negro, and asian would basically be separate species, and the different categories among each group (chinese, japanese, filipino, or kenya, nigerian, congolese etc) would actually be the race.

[TripleA]

What are we arguing here?

It is the same for a white or Asian person

I understand the variance for genetic traits based on regional/nationality locale

But the base plain of African heritage and European heritage still plays a part

Both base races have different cranium shapes, both unique to themselves

And here's where the research gets interesting

It's thought that Europeans mixed with Neanderthals whereas the Africans did not nearly as much

The base races does have impact on genetics, clearly

A Somali has more genetic similarities to a Arab than a West African.