People who think HRC was a great candidate

I can’t imagine how anyone, after the 2008 crash and burn, could say she was a good candidate. You might have preferred she win, but never a good candidate.

I believe you can regulate guns more effectively, reducing gun violence, without exposing the 2nd Amendment for what it was intended and what, until recently, it was used to defend.

Probably, but it’s tricky, and in my view, not likely to be effective, without amending out the 2nd.

Various forms of superficial supremacy….

Yea, I think identity politics is screwing up our heads, too.

Folks who think they have the perfect way for the rest of us to bootstrap ourselves up ….

No objection with that either. I think that everyone who is properly tooled to do so can succeed, but no two people face the same challenges or obstacles.

I’ve found myself allowing myself to do these things to groups 1–4 above and some other groups on Medium.

In general, trolling (which is what that amounts to) is ineffectual. I toy with the trolls on Disqus from time to time, just for fun, but I really can’t understand how or why lefties hop on the Daily Caller board (for example) and post the same ad hominems day after day after day.

Ahem. Thank you for helping me make this vow.

My pleasure.

As for the SPLC, I take it like any other group: I’m going to agree with them sometimes and sometimes I will disagree.

Sure. But the “eat the watermelon and spit out the seeds” only works individually; IF the SPLC is engaged in lefty agitprop, AND sites like Facebook and Google are consulting them as if they are fair and balanced, THEN they become a bigger obstacle to free and fair elections then, say, Voter ID or Russian trolls.

I see Sommers claimed rape only affects 2% of women. Does she still hold to that? Did SPLC just speak out against her, or did it declare her a hate group/individual? She speaks out against “rape culture” claims, and I’m concerned she makes straw person arguments to do so. Do you think she does or that she has numbers behind her?

I havn’t drilled down into the figures on each. It is my understanding that she defines rape as “completed forced penetration” ONLY, while the statistics which are often quoted include (a) attempted forced penetration, and (b) “completed alcohol- or drug-facilitated penetration,” where the woman (in her inebriated state) did not actively object until after the deed is done. This may explain the difference in the statistics.

I don’t have time right now to look into SPLC’s claims against: Ben Carson, Charles Murray, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, etc. Are they worth me looking into?

Well, if you like. They ended up apologizing to Ben Carson, the Ali issue….bewilders me, because she is an activist against islamic EXTREMISM (ISIS) specifically (I mean, who could object to THAT), and the Murray case, which has been percolating for nearly 40 years, focuses on matters of research and fact which evidently aren’t supposed to be voiced.

There’s a lot of people on the right who consider the SPLC to be the hate group, because of all this.

But the idea of attacking Nazis with violence is a time honored tradition in America. Why should it stop now?

Well, there are two problems that I see. The first is defining who a “Nazi” is; obviously, if they go around reading Mein Kampf, that’s one thing; but throwing around the term “Nazi” to describe anyone you disagree with is intellectually dishonest; it’s been noted, all the back to WW2, that the fascists and the anti-fascists used the same tactics to move their message.

The second is that we are still a nation of laws, and even the damn KKK is entitled to a parade permit if they want one. The idea that we might backtrack from our even LONGER tradition of free expression scares me more than a bunch of misfits who object to moving confederate statues around.

Again, I don’t actually approve of vigilante actions, especially proactive ones, but if I saw a Nazi hurting a Jewish person or a POC, and there were no police intervention — I’d hope I’d step in to help.

Well, that’s very different. Obviously, anyone should be helped in such situation, regardless of race/color/creed/political affiliation.

I just also see why SPLC might find it ideologically more iffy to take a stand here, as the people they’be labeling as a hate group are anti-Nazi. SPLC would then put themselves in a position to be accused of condemning the Allied Forces, or people who supported them, which feels problematic.

Well, to me, there’s a difference between HATE and disagreeing with the current leftist convention on how “X” should be accomodated. I can disagree with same sex marriage without hating anyone, or discriminating against anyone, for example. I am not sure the SPLC agrees; and if they do not, then 70% of Americans suddenly belong to a “hate group” based on the simple fact that they belong to a religious group which believes that marriage is a holy ceremony between a man and a woman.

And groups whose official platform recommends violence against a protected group, like the Roman Catholic Church, should be evaluated if CAIR is, IMHO. As in: the Bible justifies a violence against protected groups, just like people say the Koran does.

Slow down. There are important nuances here that you’re missing. Let’s use the Law of Moses and Shariah Law as examples.

Both the Law of Moses and Shariah indicate that stoning to death is an acceptable punishment for homosexuality. Now, when was the last time in the US a group of Jews stoned anyone to death?

Like, never. Why? Because it conflicts with US Law, AND because it is no longer considered civilized in the world in general. So, You can’t label Islam or Judaism (or the RC’s for that matter) a hate group because their Scriptures say “you can do this” if they no longer do it. :-) That doesn’t make any sense.

So, yes, if a Muslim group (ISIS) wants advance a strict adherence to Sharia, including the LGBT punishments, then that SUBGROUP of Islam is a hate group. But the rest of us normal, modern people, who believe that those punishments should be “retired”, would prefer not to be lumped in with them, thank you very much. :-)

Why do you, or Svetlana, claim there is a definition of feminism which trumps any individual’s take on it.

Well, feminist theory is taught using feminist theory textbooks at the university level.

It’s now considered a serious branch of philosophy or sociology with well defined parameters. So, when somebody says they’re a feminist, it’s no different than me saying “I’m a Muslim”. There are variations on the theme, but there’s no Muslims running around saying that Muhammad (pbuh) isn’t the final Prophet, or that Isa (Jesus) isn’t a prophet, etc.

Are you prescriptivist and not descriptivist? Do you believe there is an authoritative text on feminism which anyone who claims to be feminist should adhere to?

Well, I’m inclined to defer to Svetlana’s deeper study of the matter than mine. I’ve never personally felt as if I had any resistance in perusing the education and/or employment of my choosing due to my sex, so I really can’t comment on people who have.

Your feedback has been greatly appreciated, and I thank you in advance for the stamina it would take to read my TL;DR response.

De Nada.

Free markets, free minds. Question all narratives. If you think one political party is right and the other party is evil, the problem with our politics is you.