The narratives about Trump thread.


Where did I hint to it being settled? I offered a different view.

I am not trying to educate you. You consistently and without fail ask me to back up everything. Just doing what is demanded of me. All I did was offer a link to a viewpoint, just like you did. What is wrong with that?

You are right. I am wrong about Milo. He is a fine outstanding of a human being and a positive role model for all out children. I can’t wait for him to give bring his fun for all ages show to an elementary school! Tell me more about what makes him so awesome, since all the media is biased against him and everything they say about him is utter lies.


This is a topic I am of two minds with. Yes, it seems that calling transgenderism a disorder seems a little callous and maybe serves a negative purpose, but at the same time having it labeled at disorder could open the gates for it being a disability and eligible for benefits. So there is that. A problem, I think, with it being a disorder is that it comes dangerously close to something akin to “gay therapy”, in that it can and should be treated until cured.

Is transgenderism a disorder in the physical sense, IE wires got crossed in fetal development and hormone production has gone awry? OR, is a nature/nurture scenario that gets brought up in discussions on homosexuality?

In my life I have no people who had absolutely zero reservations of having sexy-time relationships with either sex at any given time. They did not consider themselves gay, or homosexual, or lesbian, or even heterosexual for that matter. Omni sexual was a phrase I remember, but not sure if that was an actual thing. I have also know men and women who would ONLY form intimate relationships with the same sex, and they thought of themselves as gay. Of course, I have known men and women who only have physical relationships with the opposite sex. Everyone functioned fine. No signs of any problem, mental or otherwise. Although, some would say they were mentally ill. There are people today who consider homosexuality to be a disorder.

I can see your point, but I do not think they would exclude something from a forthcoming DSM simply out of social pressure. Maybe new evidence has come to light that would alter a previous viewpoint. Remember, mental disorders in some cultures carry stigmas. Maybe loss of a job, or even children. At one time, treating irascible people was as simple as an ice pick to the eye socket. Even today, some societies view depression and anxiety as serious disorders that can cost people their jobs. Are their labor protections in TW for people with depression, or some other “disorder”? In the US, the answer is “kind of” and “depends.”

In some ways, I feel that labelling transgender people as having a disorder could be used as a way to stigmatize them. To tell them they are sick and should be shunned until cured. On the other hand, labeling them as having a disorder could open the way for protections and indeed, benefits.

Either way, this is not something that should be decided by demagogues or talking heads. It should be for a consortium of medical doctors, psychiatrists, anthropologists, biologists, etc from all over the planet to bring their evidence and research to the table and make a decision.


The Daily Stormer has some good discussions.


This is not about who is right or wrong, it’s about if Milo should have the right to free speech, by saying i think he should, that does not form an endorsement of his position.


There you go again, strawmanning us when you know better. And then you go and endorse the Daily Stormer. :confused:

My impression of Milo is that he’s like a small time rock star who chooses not to deny a nasty rumor about him because it could make him sound badass and increase his popularity, and it works, so then he thinks, what’s the next level of badassery?


Show me where I said Milo should be denied speech. Go ahead. I never did. He should and in fact has the right to spew, verbally and otherwise, whatever nonsense in whatever manner he sees fit. Please correct me if I am wrong, but my argument was centered around the idea that people should have the right to exercise their FoS&E by not having to listen to him. The right to change the channel, if you will. Exercise of the so-called “Captured Audience Doctrine.”

I am sure you are aware of the FoS argument “no safe spaces”, yes? Are we talking legal or moral?

And I would like to point out the wonderful hypocrisy of Milo and many FoS arguers. The rightwing press, and even Milo, the champions of the Neo Free Speech Movement, like to go out of their way to bash, largely minority players, who take a knee during the national anthem. Currently, there is no law -federal or otherwise- in regards to this issue. And it would actually be unconstitutional to do that. However, school children are required to do that, and I think that is a load of bullshit.


You do not really get sarcasm, do you?

Milo is a bully. He can dish it out, but he himself cannot take it coming back at him. He has cloaked himself in everything he perceives the left holds dear, and fires from within. I am surprised he hasn’t adopted Islam. Give it time, though.

FoS, as with many causes, is great as long as it fits the narrative. As soon as someone else takes advantage of it, then…oh, that must be stopped! Like the aforementioned football players.
Or a mosque in Manhattan. As I have already mentioned, I doubt there will be much sympathy from the NFoSM for liberal commentators, or even Muslim commentators, giving speeches at Liberty, Utah State, or any other traditionally conservative college. Why doesn’t Milo take his show to Howard, or Bowie State?


This isn’t a freedom of speech issue. Those players are engaging in political protest while they’re on the job, and the NFL rulebook specifically requires players to stand during the national anthem. If they don’t like the rules, they’re welcome to find employment elsewhere, or free speech to their heart’s content on their own time… Do you think your boss would be OK with you engaging in a political protest when you’re standing in front of a class full of students? I seriously doubt it.


If it’s merely a private dispute between labor and management, why does the Don’s opinion matter?


Because…culture war.


Spoken like true tvarishch!

Interestingly you use the very charged “political speech” label, as if that changes anything.

Rowland would probably beg to differ, and oddly, I agree with him. The NFL receives huge federal tax breaks and incentives, which effectively makes them public, ergo constitutional law transcends its traditional private/public separation. Then there is the whole supremacy clause thing, while a stretch, could be invoked or argued in court.

The NFL is, in light of the whole private/public thing, in full rights to release all the players as well. Both sides appear to have each other by the proverbial balls here. The amount of revenue lost by not having games to air, and breaches of contracts with networks would probably kill the league. The flipside, the players have a steady paycheck coming in.

Ihre Führer could involk his EO pen and take away the NFL tax breaks by not forcing the players to stand. But that would be akin to…oh what is it? I can’t think of the word right now.

This is TW, not the US. That comparison is not even apples/oranges. It is oranges and rocks. For what it is worth, with out me saying a word, every one of my kids thinks he is evil, since their parents say that. Just warms your heart, doesn’t it? I am so proud of them.


There’s nothing even remotely “charged” about calling something exactly what it is.

This is an argument for getting rid of those tax breaks and incentives, not for treating a sports franchise like a public entity. It’s ridiculous to think of professional sports as a public service.

I enjoy watching football, but this might not necessarily be a bad thing. When you’re not providing customers what they want, your business gets punished. It’s pretty simple really.

“Obamaesque” perhaps?

The same principle applies to any job anywhere (except maybe hack journalist, talking head, etc.) Bosses aren’t paying employees to “exercise their free speech rights.” Interesting that you’re proud your kids are mindlessly absorbing political ideologies from their parents. Spoken like a true Stalinist.


The NFL has seen a steady decline the past few seasons, beginning before all this. Correlation is not causation.

Not every country operates the same. Do some traveling, you will learn that.

Why wouldn’t I be proud? Not my job to educate them politically. Besides, my bosses agree with me on the whole issue. They think he is a racist nut-job. Cannot argue with that. They did that all on their own, too! I told them just wait till they talk with his supporters! They were like “We know!” See, they lived in America. Their kids were born there. That happens. Non-Europeans go to America and have kids. Just a thing. Your boy will probably change that to your liking sooner or later. How does it go, America First? You are aware that that was the slogan of a pro-nazi group, right?
Oh, do not be sad that many people see him for the phony he is. Its is ok.


Just about every country on the planet puts the interests of its own citizens first. Are you trying to smear the whole community of nations as being pro-nazi? This is a very strange way of thinking.


No. Just specifically that phrase. Odd the man with the biggest knowledge would not have been aware of that.

…and the Atlantic being MSM in 3…2…


The fact that “America first” was used before in a different context means precisely nothing, unless you’re an anti-Trumper who needs some content for that “scream at the sky.” If it was something like “exterminate the Jews,” you would have a point.


Maybe they should adopt the Sieg Heil! as well. I mean, in that logic it was used for something else previously.

I do not need anything to be anti whats-his-name. He has done nothing to earn my respect. Funny that I am anti it for the things I am not anti. I am not anti-immigration, muslim, LGBQT, dreamer (should kids be punished for the actions of their parents? if so, that is straight up north korea shit, there). I am not a racist. I am against the wall. I think he was foreign born and his birth certificate is fake.


So what is your point? Milo has been stopped from speaking due to riots and violence, are you saying you support his right to speak but also support the rights of people to protest peacefully against such speech, because I would go along with that.

Also do you condemn the violence and threats of violence that shut down his intended event.


Why do I have to agree to anything? I agree with the protesters and their right to protest. I agree with their message and intent. FoS&E is a two-way street. If I go to parts of Texas wearing a pro-Obama shirt, start chanting in Spanish about gay rights and punctuating each sentence with “Allahu Akhbar!” OR if I go to the North of England and start chanting “EU all the way, Nigel Farage he is gay! (and apparently has a problem with Jews)” then I should be prepared to take whatever comes my way, right? I do not think the response is going to simply be “Oh, you silly boy!” The Top Gear boys pulled a similar stunt in the Deep South, and went on to talk about the tomfoolery that followed.

My point? FoS&E be damned, do not go into a tigers cage and start smacking him on the nuts and then get surprised and upset when he tries to eat your face.

You know what would be interesting? If, I dunno, the Indigo girls or Dixie Chicks, or Cat Stevens should give a performance in the exact same area at the exact same time as him. They can try to drown each other out. No one’s speech is being denied. Everyone wins!

Although, this time I think the Milo-Coulter-Bannon crowd is going to be a closed event under heavy security. And these are the very people who stand against “safe places” on campus. However, I think this time they are coming with a small army of supporters, and not the FoS kind. Could get interesting.


So I take it you tacitly support the violence.