4 ms·

Yes. A significant percentage of people are any combination of racist, sexist or homophobic. Their views are well represented in other newspapers, media and in

by Jonnax 7y ago

Yes. A significant percentage of people are any combination of racist, sexist or homophobic. Their views are well represented in other newspapers, media and in politics. In fact in the UK it can be argued to be the majority view. Why is it that these people always want to say that they're the real victims whilst sugarcoating their views with the phrase "opposing viewpoints". It's like there's a playbook to follow for disingenuous argument.

coldtea 7y ago
>Yes. A significant percentage of people are any combination of racist, sexist or homophobic. And a great majority of people don't particularly like giving sovereignty to participate into a nebulous "European Union" which mostly promotes German interests and Brussels bureucrats, don't welcome immigration as panacea without thinking their race is superior (just that their country doesn't need more people coming in, whether caucasian or black or whatever), have a good relationship with their spouses without turning everything into a war of the sexes and a fight against "patriarchy", and are straight/LGBT/etc, etc, and content with it, without making everything be about their sexual preferences, or approving of BS demands like trans persons competing in women's sports, or the "cotton ceiling". And yet those people are frequently classified as racist, sexist and homophobic, because any nuance away from a constantly widening Overton window is considered beyond the pale -- even if what they say could very well have been the opinion of the mainstream of the left population in, say, 1980s (heck, in 1999 in Seattle the left fought against "globalization", and today anybody that speaks against the same is a "populist/Trump supporter/xenophobic/etc"). >Why is it that these people always want to say that they're the real victims whilst sugarcoating their views with the phrase "opposing viewpoints". It's like there's a playbook to follow for disingenuous argument. So, just like there's a playbook to demonize the other side with thought-crimes ("anybody that says X is "racist, sexist or homophobic", and you get to define how wide X can be...).

by Jonnax 7y ago

coldtea 7y ago

>Yes. A significant percentage of people are any combination of racist, sexist or homophobic. And a great majority of people don't particularly like giving sovereignty to participate into a nebulous "European Union" which mostly promotes German interests and Brussels bureucrats, don't welcome immigration as panacea without thinking their race is superior (just that their country doesn't need more people coming in, whether caucasian or black or whatever), have a good relationship with their spouses without turning everything into a war of the sexes and a fight against "patriarchy", and are straight/LGBT/etc, etc, and content with it, without making everything be about their sexual preferences, or approving of BS demands like trans persons competing in women's sports, or the "cotton ceiling". And yet those people are frequently classified as racist, sexist and homophobic, because any nuance away from a constantly widening Overton window is considered beyond the pale -- even if what they say could very well have been the opinion of the mainstream of the left population in, say, 1980s (heck, in 1999 in Seattle the left fought against "globalization", and today anybody that speaks against the same is a "populist/Trump supporter/xenophobic/etc"). >Why is it that these people always want to say that they're the real victims whilst sugarcoating their views with the phrase "opposing viewpoints". It's like there's a playbook to follow for disingenuous argument. So, just like there's a playbook to demonize the other side with thought-crimes ("anybody that says X is "racist, sexist or homophobic", and you get to define how wide X can be...).