Danielle

Does anyone deny that we have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, or does anyone feel that we shouldn't have this right?

Nativist: It's fine for people to immigrate, but it must be done legally! 

I agree that some people are making too big a deal about Covid, though I'm happy to see city leadership pushing back. For instance Lori Lightfoot in Chicago and Eric Adams in NYC have been fighting teacher's unions (fuck them) trying to make schools go remote again, and we haven't had lockdowns of any kind even in Los Angeles despite Covid cases and hospitalizations increasing.  The second you leave city limits there are no mask mandates, social distance requirements, etc. and life has largely gone back to normal for almost everyone. So it seems like governments have been continuously loosening the reigns - the exact opposite of what was supposed to be the end result of this Bill Gates induced scamdemic. 

Now what I don't get about the vaccine skeptics is why they think politicians and doctors all over the world are conspiring to poison or needlessly jab their citizens just for the hell of it. There are other ways to keep Big Pharma profitable. Why would every single country, including our enemies,  be espousing the same lies -- and how did they convince the overwhelming majority of the science community across the globe to go along with it? (I get that Sweden was one very unique country, as in small and homogenous, that avoided lockdowns; however, they are nearly 90% vaccinated against Covid now.) 

North Korea and  Eritrea are the only two countries without Covid vaccine campaigns. Instead North Korea has dealt with the pandemic through years of lockdowns that are still ongoing. So to be clear, what is the alleged logic behind all of the countries around the globe including North Korea taking strong action against Covid? Are we all on the same side now? I assume the theory is that it's some sort of GLOBAL conspiracy to take over the world. Can someone explain to me how it works? Does Dr. Fauci control Kim Jung Un? Did our Deep State force Russia to develop their own vaccine? Did China really want to help the richest U.S. companies grow even richer which threatens their economic prowess... is that the argument?  I don't get it. 

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Section 230 states that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. It is the law that says that if I post something defamatory on Twitter, the victim can sue me, but not Twitter.

A lot of people including Donald Trump and Joe Biden among other lawmakers have called to repeal Section 230. I'm firmly opposed. What say you?  

Qualified immunity refers to a series of legal precedents that protect government officials (including police officers) accused of violating constitutional rights. The rationale for qualified immunity is that officials should be free from vacuous lawsuits and thus deserve to be put "on notice" as to what is and is not constitutional behavior. It is a standard that has seen government officials get off for assaulting and arresting a man for standing outside of his own home, for shooting and killing a man who had been sleeping in his car, for beating a man after pulling him over for broken lights, for leaving an innocent man's home in ruins after conducting a SWAT raid on the wrong house, and for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Without a prior ruling with identical facts, the victims in the above scenarios were not allowed to state their claims before a jury.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas — among the court's most liberal and most conservative members, respectively — have previously criticized qualified immunity. Congressional Democrats have made multiple attempts in recent years to limit qualified immunity, though none have been successful. 

Do you support qualified immunity?

Republicans are upset that Twitter banned the belligerent psychopath Marjorie Taylor Greene from their platform. Wah. 

This is your friendly reminder that it is NOT a first amendment violation for a private website to remove or refuse to publish content that they don't want to host. It IS a first amendment violation to force private companies to host content they do not want to. The first amendment protects you from the government, not from Twitter. And it protects Twitter from being forced to platform the speech of politicians. 

Side bar: I saw an article written by Rand Paul earlier with with the headline Today I take my first step toward denying my content to Big Tech. He says he's boycotting YouTube in favor of Rumble. Now the irony here is him choosing to post this on the website of the Washington Examiner - a platform which regularly refuses to publish things that people submit, and does not allow comments on its articles. Lol.  But this announcement also proves that Big Tech social sites are not actually  monopolies and you really can just go somewhere else. Beep beep, Randall. 

There are so many copycat social sites where conservatives can circle jerk each other if they really wanted to. Gab, Parler, Gettr and others are basically just twitter where right wingers can congregate to commiserate over conspiracies. But those sites  fail because 1) they're very unoriginal ideas and 2) half the fun of social media is triggering strangers. It doesn't work when the user base already agrees with you, but I digress.

A social media site that can't police content  would be something like 8chan. That is not a world that most people, least of all conservatives, want to live in. There's  a reason that certain types of people frequent those sectors of the internet, and there's a reason the rest of us do not. If you want to spend your days jerking off to Japanese furry porn or rotting your brain with the likes of whatever the fuck nonsense Marjorie Taylor Greene spouts off, there's a place for you out there for sure. It's just not twitter. 

The day phase will end on 12 pm noon  (EST) tomorrow. 

Most people know about Rosa Parks and the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott that began in 1955, but few know that there were a number of women who refused to give up their seats on the same bus system before Ms. Parks' famous story. One of those women was  Claudette Colvin (whiteflame). When she was 15, she refused to move to the back of the bus and give up her seat to a white person — nine months before Rosa Parks did the very same thing. Rosa Parks was a bit older and had the right "image" to use as a symbol of the Civil Rights Movement, but it was often young people that made a lot of headway on the front lines. Claudette Colvin was one of four women plaintiffs in Browder v. Gayle, the court case that successfully overturned bus segregation laws in Montgomery and Alabama. In this game, she was a vanilla townsperson but could influence the game with her voice and her vote. 

Today the Equality Act was reintroduced to Congress. The Equality Act would provide consistent and explicit anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people across key areas of life, including employment, housing, credit, education, federally funded programs and jury service. As it stands, LGBT people can be fired from their jobs, evicted from their homes, or denied service from businesses in the majority of states simply for being who they are (or who their parents are). 

The Equality Act is expected to pass easily in the House, but struggle in the Senate.  Ten Republicans would be needed to reach the 60 votes to end a filibuster on the legislation, and right now it doesn't look like they have the votes.  

I don't understand why Republicans have a problem with this bill. Isn't firing someone for being gay CANCEL CULTURE? I assumed they would be eager to mitigate Cancel Culture and make sure people aren't discriminated against simply because you don't like them or the way they live, but surprise!  It turns out conservatives feel very strongly about their right to discriminate and ban or cancel people at their discretion 🤪

The Civil Rights Act bans discrimination on the basis of sex, race,  religion, etc. and I don't think anyone but libertarians (i.e. very few people) would say they believe you should be allowed to legally discriminate against someone's race --  so why is sexuality different? Sexual orientation is not a choice; it is an inherent part of one's identity. So unless you believe ALL discrimination should be legal, I don't understand the right-wing argument for excluding sexuality as a protected class. 

At best there is the ridiculously bad argument about "not wanting kids to learn what sexuality is."  Why would you have to talk about sex explicitly when acknowledging one's identity? "This is Danielle's wife" is not any more risqué or sexual than saying "this is Danielle's husband."   Drawing pictures of families in kindergarten and one student drawing two moms is not any more risqué or sexual than drawing a kid with a mother and father. You don't need to talk about sex when it comes to families or relationships. 

Since sexuality is an immutable characteristic which has been verified by psychologists for decades, why do Republicans cling to the idea that you can discriminate against gay people with impunity? If they think you should be able to fire someone for being gay, why is it wrong to fire them for being black or being Christian? Religion actually ISN'T inherent to one's identity (unless you're Jewish lol) so why is it wrong to fire someone for being Catholic? Why don't Republicans push to get rid of the Civil Rights Act entirely? 

What is the latest Republican proposal on healthcare? 

And does anyone else find it funny that conservatives are having an epic meltdown about their lack of access to twitter (which is completely fake because they're all over twitter) but not their lack of access to life saving treatments or medicines they can't afford? Like, if they believe the government ought to step in to protect their GOD GIVEN RIGHT to post on twitter, why don't they feel as strongly about lack of access to medical care?

Rand Paul acknowledges that likening a right to healthcare is slavery cuz if you have a right to something that requires other people, it means you have a right to other people's services and labor whether they want to serve you or not. Yet he has a problem with "political bias" dictating access to people's alleged right to speak to an audience online. That also requires other people's labor (software engineers, IT people, etc.) so who cares? It's their choice if they want to serve people, Rand.

Anyway this isn't the best analogy/explanation cuz it's early and I'm tired, but in general conservatives really seem to think their ability to post online is more significant than their ability to get insulin or other medications without going bankrupt.  Very strange what they want the government to regulate and ensure access to and what they think the market should deal with by itself. Libertarians are obviously a bit more consistent. Conservatives are just... like...the most bizarre people to me. They'd happily eat shit if I told them doing so would pwn the libs. 

Anyway this post is neither advocating for or against government healthcare.

I'm just curious what the latest, most comprehensive Republican advocacy is. 

Dominion Voting Systems, the election equipment manufacturer that became the target of wild conspiracy theories pushed by former President Donald Trump and his allies, sued Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani for defamation Monday.

Dominion said in a 107-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Washington that "as a result of the defamatory falsehoods peddled by Giuliani" in conjunction with other Trump allies and pro-Trump media outlets, "Dominion's founder and employees have been harassed and received death threats, and Dominion has suffered unprecedented and irreparable harm."

"Dominion brings this action to set the record straight, to vindicate the company's rights under civil law, to recover compensatory and punitive damages, and to stand up for itself, its employees, and the electoral process," the lawsuit says.

After campaigning on a pledge to "drain the swamp," when Trump took office he signed an executive order that included a 5-year lobbying ban which prevents officials from lobbying the agency they worked for 5 years after leaving office. Of course there were provisions and loopholes, but for the most part, this was a good move. 

Then hours before Trump left office, he revoked his own executive order thereby allowing government officials to become lobbyists. 

Granted Trump's executive order was largely ineffective in the first place, with at least 33 former administration officials sidestepping the lobbying restrictions according to ProPublica. But by rescinding his ethics order and letting his staffers immediately become lobbyists, the man who pledged to drain the swamp took a giant step to fill it. We know that Trump believes having administration officials turned lobbyists = swampy because he said so when he signed the order. 

The White House has been outwardly cavalier about its ethical behavior (having been accused of illegally violating the Hatch Act dozens of times). In an interview with Politico, Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows argued that “nobody outside of the Beltway really cares” about ethics violations. It looks like he's right! 

The fact that Trump can have the diehard allegiance of millions despite routinely mocking their intelligence is something I have come to admire, or rather, revere. These low-information sheep don't even realize they should be trying to reconcile this pro swamp move with Mr. Drain the Swamp. They're too deeply invested in this cult of personality to accept how comically absurd it is that they fell for some aristocrat whose lived in a New York City penthouse his whole life being the savior and mouthpiece for the everyday working class American who struggles to put food on the table. These folks actually believe Mr. Silver Spoon whose obsessed with celebrity and riches somehow wouldn't prioritize his crony friends over righteousness. They just can't grasp that Donald Trump is ever a politician (phony, self-aggrandizing and perpetually lying) as there ever was. I'm impressed. There won't be another master manipulator like Trump for a very long time. 

I fully and 100% support banning Parler and Trump's twitter account. First, it is important to note that despite the false claims by Trump Jr. et. al,  there is absolutely no first amendment violation at play. Nobody has a right to utilize platforms like Twitter or Google. Business discrimination is permissible so long as it is not predicated on a legally protected class. But of course just because something is legal does not mean it is justified. However, it is easy to argue that banning Trump and Parler from big tech platforms is perfectly justified. 

Not only have Trump and Parler repeatedly violated the terms of service of the platforms that have hosted them, they have arguably used these platforms to facilitate breaking the law. It is entirely possible that Trump could be charged with the crime of inciting violence, in which case these platforms may not feel it is ethical or legal to potentially help him do so. For instance is reported that the tweet which prompted twitter to remove Trump's account is the one where he clarified he would not be attending Joe Biden's inauguration; it was a not so subtle way of telling his violently agitated supporters that they are welcome to attack the event without Trump being in danger.

This is far from being unlikely and it could easily be seen as the intent of his tweet. Just minutes after Giuliani told a crowd of Trump supporters that we should have a "trial by combat," which they celebrated and cheered, Trump told his cult followers to storm the capitol and said he would join them (he didn't) where they proceeded to chant "hang Mike Pence" while frothing at the mouth before scaling the wall + busting open windows at the Capitol building after being let in by some police.

We have seen the president attempt to stage a failed coup which he was reportedly happy about according to sources from inside the White House. We have seen the president utilize social media platforms to peddle false conspiracy theories which threaten the republic and have people calling for civil war, despite the alleged justification proven to have been demonstrably false after investigations. We have routinely seen the president disparage these very platforms he relies on and uses for free, attempting to regulate them into submission despite allegedly being "pro freedom" and "anti authoritarian" which his supporters are obviously too dull to notice is contradictory.  And we have seen the president show no culpability or remorse for any of the damage he continues to cause, including getting some incredibly misguided follower(s) of his shot over his massive lie. 

Despite this, and despite twitter warning him about potentially losing his posting privileges if he continued to fan the flames of a bloodthirsty mob, the insanely narcissistic Mr. Trump simply could not help himself. He ignored twitter's warnings -- just like Parler ignored Apple and Google's repeat warnings of TOS violations -- and as a result he was FINALLY removed. 

Now keep in mind when libertarians and conservatives insist we don't need government regulation, it's because they say the market will regulate itself. The market will weed out the bad apples, right? That's why they are perfectly okay with a Christian baker not baking a gay wedding cake. They insist it is the baker's right to discriminate based on their beliefs, and they say that the market will punish them through boycotts and slander. Well here it is, folks! LIBERTARIANS, REJOICE. We can see the market at work just like you said it would. These private platforms have acted in defense of their deeply held beliefs (among other things I just mentioned above) without the government being able to force them to host these potential criminals.

Or... do "anti authoritarian" conservatives and libertarians suddenly have concerns about private businesses discriminating? o_O HMM. Interesting that the Law and Order enthusiasts would get up in arms (literally, no pun intended) over a private company silencing criminals but will defend to the death the right for bigots to discriminate against people who love someone of the same sex. 

Anyway fuck Trump, fuck Parler, and god help the poor people that have been manipulated into supporting them. 

The most amusing posts are the ones insisting CONSERVATIVE VOICES ARE BEING SILENCED from right-wing pundits and accounts with huge platforms like Fox News, Breitbart, and a bunch of other demented "pro patriot" sources. It's too much. 

The audio of this phone call is like telling the Nixon tapes to "hold my beer." 

Trump says Americans need more than $600. Republicans say no, we can't afford it. Looks like the GOP did not become a populist party after all. Now what?

*** MAFIA WINS!!! *** 

whiteflame - You are the GRINCH. You once thought stealing gifts would stop Christmas. Now let's see how stealing votes works out. You are the VOTE THIEF. During the night phase you may steal a player's vote and cast it on another player for the following day phase. 

iLikePie - You are EBINEEZER SCROOGE. You hate Christmas so much you don't let people leave work to celebrate. During the night phase you may ROLE BLOCK a player and prevent them from carrying out any night actions.

drafterman - You are DAMIEN CLAUSE. Because you're a direct descendent of St. Nick himself, nobody thinks to pay you any mind. You also have more power than you should. During the night you can either choose to be a NINJA and bypass any Watcher or Tracker reports, or you can utilize STRONGMAN powers and bypass any protective abilities that would otherwise stop a night kill. 

Fake character claim options: Mrs. Clause, Ghost of Christmas Past/ Present/ Future, Frosty the Snowman 

Fake role claim options: Bride, Oracle, Vanilla 

=============

Town Losers...

Lunatic: You are JACK SKELLINGTON. It's true that you're the patron saint of Halloween, therefore spending most of your time with ghosts and spooky spirits. But you've grown to *love* Christmas and wish to help save it. You are the GHOUL. During the night phase you may choose another player. If you would be targeted by a killing action, that action is instead redirected to your target. You may only successfully redirect a kill once per game. You win with the town.

oromagi: You are CINDY LOU WHO. You are full of joy and have a very kind heart. You're determined to show everyone what Christmas is really all about: being a good person. You are the INNOCENT CHILD and start the game as a town aligned player, which will be revealed at the start of the game. You win with the town.

that1user: You are BOB CRATCHIT. You don't have much to give but you try to give what you can. You bring joy to the town as a Christmas CAROLER. During the game you may visit another player. That player will receive a 'carol' that contains a list of players, at least one of which is scum (you do not know how many players will be on the list). You win with the town.

MisterChris: You are YUKON CORNELIUS. In the Rudolph movie, you can be seen trekking through the snow with your handy pick axe. Everyone thinks you are prospecting through the arctic mining for silver and gold, when really it's peppermint you're looking for. A kind fellow you do not mind using your skills to help others navigate to save Christmas. You are the TRACKER and win with the town.

=============

=============

Guys... before you yell at me for making such a swingy game, I really don't think it was lol. I put a lot of thought into it and I'm confident that had like one of many things gone differently the outcome would have been a much more interesting game that went down to the wire. So many things were just so bizarre! Too many WTF moments. Thank god I wasn't playing. The only thing I would take responsibility for as a "mod mistake" is having a hated townie in the game with a vote thief. But so many things could have gone differently there (i.e. whiteflame being lynched on DP1 or 2, Supa not being shot NP1, etc.,) that I don't know how much responsibility I should take, though I'm sure you will all tell me otherwise and yeah I admit that was like the one thing I would do differently :P 

I'm sure people won't like that I also gave scum a bunch of fake claims. Supa had the option of SANTA CLAUSE or RUDOLPH (that's why Rudolph wasn't the hated townie though he would have been a better fit) and he could have fake claimed Doc, Bulletproof, Mason Recruiter, JOAT or Vanilla.

I know some people might think that's insane but I cannot reiterate how much I hate how games are broken based on themes. I love modding themed games as much as the next guy but in reality they just take away so much from the actual skill set of Mafia IMO. Also I like the dynamic of closed set ups where you know exactly which roles are included, however I also like room for leeway and fake claims and options. So giving fake claims was my way to kind of balance that. And honestly LikeMagic nailed her behavioral assessment lol that was CRAZY. She's gonna rage at yall so I'ma sign off before that happens. Hopefully she turns her fury onto you so town doesn't turn their fury onto me lol.

I really do think the game was balanced aside from the Hated. Ah well. Good job to the scum team and THANK YOU ALL FOR THE ACTIVITY. 

Bullish: You are BUDDY the ELF. You really don't have much to offer other than spreading a ton of Christmas cheer. You are VANILLA and win with the town.

Speedrace: You are RALPHIE PARKER. Sure you're excited about Christmas, but for you it's just a means to an end. What you're really concerned about is getting your hands on an official Red Ryder carbine action two-hundred-shot range model air rifle. Then you can take out the bad guys yourself one by one, and everybody will love you if you get it right. You are the VIGILANTE and can shoot at a player during the night phase. You win with the town.

A mandated reporter is a person who is legally required to report any suspicion of child abuse or neglect to the relevant authorities. Teachers and psychologists are some examples of people that are required to report any known abuse. The laws are in place to prevent children from being abused and to end any possible abuse or neglect at the earliest possible stage.

Historically, American law has protected a clergy-penitent privilege for a religious confessional that is similar to attorney-client privilege. In other words, clergy are not required to tell anyone about any abuse or rape they know about. Only seven states have laws requiring priests to report this information.

Catholic priests are not the only people who hear people's confession in religious contexts. Scientology uses a process known as auditing which allegedly helps people "rid themselves of their spiritual disabilities." Like priests they are exempt from having to report any abuse they've learned about in a confession or similar process, and do not have to provide testimony in a court of law. 

A lot of people have come forward to report their experience of sexual abuse within all kinds of religious institutions. Many times people in the church know what is going on, but do nothing to stop it. A bill that started making its way through the California legislature last year would have made CA the first since 1999 to require priests to choose between violating the law or violating the seal of the confessional.

As predicted, virtually every religious institution fought back and the law was withdrawn. One bishop argued, "If any legislature can force believers to reveal their innermost thoughts and feelings shared with God in confession, then truly there is no area of human life that is free or safe from government. Another added, "Surely murder, theft, spousal abuse, child neglect and rape are terrible crimes. Would the state determine that priests are obligated to report these offenses to the authorities, should they hear of them in the confessional?"

Day Phase 1  will end on Tuesday, 12/22/2020 at 4:30 pm EST unless otherwise noted in advance. 

I had a Christmas themed game but I dunno when Supa's game is gonna end. Let's shoot for 12 players and see :) 

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

Has anyone seen Trial 4 on Netflix? There are so many documentaries just like this, but I'm glad they are made. 

What is "ego" and why do some folks believe it is something bad?

It's one thing to be so narcissistic, so much of an ego-maniac that you refuse to denounce insane conspiracy theories like QAnon because believers claim you are saving the world, and that probably makes you feel good - so good that you will allow wackjob supporters to carry on their ridiculous antics and lies with zero regard so long as they continue to worship you. But for a President of the United States to perpetuate the narrative that there is cheating and widespread voter fraud without any evidence whatsoever is truly sick and very dangerous. This is the kind of shit you see in third world countries that creates civil unrest and division between civilians, government and the military. What are we, Bolivia now? Are we Ecuador? 

The U.S. election system is not perfect. There MAY be cheating. Our voting system is not as secure as we'd like. But until and unless there is hard evidence, this posturing by Donald Trump as some sort of "hero of the people" being denied by the political elites is a script straight out of a (wannabe) dictator's handbook. The fact is Donald Trump is NOT supported by the majority; he lost the popular vote both times. He knows he's hated by more than half the country and routinely trashed in the media, yet he somehow can't fathom a loss. Remember Trump claimed there would be fraud in the first presidential election but let it go because he won. If he really believed there was fraud, why not investigate then and see if he actually won? The polls were all off so wouldn't that "irregularity" warrant an investigation? Why not investigate the 2018 midterm election? Oh right, because he wasn't running and didn't need an excuse for losing. That's all this is. 

Donald Trump is the one who went on TV and asked his supporters to commit felonies by voting twice. Then he doubled down on it. Now he's complaining about "fraud," so you're going to have all of these braindead Trump supporters mindlessly parroting fake news stories and ready to take up arms. And he wants them marching in the streets with AR-15s. Do you think the President cares that he is going to create huge concern about our democracy and  distrust of the electoral process? Do you think he cares about sowing division and riling people up to want to go out and shoot people to "save our country?" No, of course not. That's exactly why he's unfit to be President. Not only because he's an utterly incompetent, self-obsessed  pathological liar who doesn't have a good grasp of policy and can't lead effectively -- but because he's a bad person and a bad man who truly doesn't care about the harm he causes if it's in his self-interest. That's true of most politicians, but Trump is particularly careless.

I lied. I don't think Discord forum mafia is happening 

10 

~ Classic Mafia ~ 

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

Another  falsehood touted by ignorant talking heads is that Obama was a socialist. Of course every Democratic presidential candidate in 2020 was to the left of Obama which is a little funny/sad. But what's interesting to me is what while the fear mongering behind He'S CoMinG tO tAkE yOuR gUnS eventually subsided once realized that was entirely untrue, people still refer to Obama as a socialist to this day. Does anyone here believe that or deny that Obama was relatively moderate according to pre Liberty Caucus standards? After all the Liberty Caucus died the second Ted Cruz and Rand Paul started calling Trump "daddy."  So I'm curious - by what metric is Obama a socialist? Unlike claims of him being a race baiter or cop hater, this one I'm seriously willing to entertain. I'm only 2% trolling here. I'd like to know why he is considered the antithesis of American values and capitalism by flag waving MAGA tools. I dunno if any of them can read or think very well but who knows maybe I'll get an interesting response from someone, anyone. 

Obama is responsible for a war on cops. This popular red herring from right-wingers to distract from any conversation about criminal justice reform is another one of my favorite idiotic talking points to dismantle. Of course it isn't  true and I love watching people squirm when you ask for any type of evidence or justification for this lie. At best they will defer to a quote from William Johnson, the executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, who went on Fox News to facilitate this smear without any substantive reasoning whatsoever. He claimed Obama "appeased violent criminals" and "actively called for the death of police officers" via BLM. He also said that unlike previous presidents, Obama did not condemn violence against police. I shit you not. This turd literally said this with a straight face on the most popular cable news network (even though any fucking idiot can Google that is explicitly and emphatically false) but to the surprise of absolutely no one, a ton of Fox News loving knobs actually believe it. If you're one of them, please cite everything Obama said and did to perpetuate a war on cops. Be prepared to argue that calls for reform is the equivalent of war. You know like how calls to reform social security is a war on social security... right? Isn't that how it works? I'm not sure but you fine people are going to explain it to me. Thank you in advance! 

A favorite talking point from right-wing troglodytes is that Obama started a race war. That's right, despite the existence of slavery which dehumanized black people for centuries; despite Jim Crow laws and segregation being the law of the land for decades after that; despite well documented systemic racism that has persisted and the fact that people still glorify the Confederacy, Barack Hussein Obama started a race war in this country... so the theory goes.   

Here is your chance to educate me! Please show me all the evidence you can find proving that Obama incited racism. Please show me all the ways in which he instigated backlash that sowed the seeds of racial division in this country as Republicans claim. I am not looking for opinions here; I want to know exactly what Obama said and exactly what Obama did, specifically, that led to hostility among the races and caused white people to fear/hate blacks or vice versa. Thank you. 

How do I accept them lol

Jordan Peterson has emerged as a popular and controversial figure. He's popular because he resonates with people who a) prefer right-leaning [especially cultural] values; and b) hold moderate to right-leaning values, while appreciating or at least tolerating thoughtful discourse that does not shy away from "anti-PC" rhetoric in search of truth and societal righteousness.

Jordan Peterson is thusly very useful in 2018. He is able to both rationalize and more importantly articulate the values and perspective that compel people to shy away from the direction the left is going; to maintain a firm moderate stance - or on the other side - maybe even support Donald Trump. Indeed Jordan Peterson is perhaps the one thing Donald Trump fans and some Democrats still have in common. He is valued by people from different ideological camps. Peterson is praised by moderate Dems, conservatives, and especially libertarian minded folk. Moreover, he is touted by both atheists and religious (mostly Christian) folk alike as being a representative of some of their most deeply held values. That wide-range of appeal is both fascinating and incredibly rare in this day and age. 

This of course begs the question: what makes Jordan Peterson different? For starters, he is the antithesis of identity politics, which is more obviously becoming an ever growing crutch of the left. Just last week Joe Biden launched an LGBTQ family acceptance campaign called "As You Are." While of course the values espoused in that campaign have merit (tolerance and acceptance), people can't help but notice the increased Democratic reliance on playing to people's identities, as many are speculating this campaign was indicative of Biden's interest in another political run. Many within its own party have accused establishment Democrats of a desperate devotion to identity causes, rather than focus on and provide smart, reliable and useful solutions to the problems and issues concerning most Americans today.

Another cornerstone of Peterson's appeal is his commitment to a rational, not emotionally driven conversation. This quells the reliance on hate spewing: it deters name-calling and appeals to emotion in lieu of a thoughtful exchange of ideas. Despite us sometimes falling victim to these anti-intellectual and potentially hateful exchanges (or maybe I'm just speaking for myself here...), I think most people do not want to rely so heavily on such tribalism. I think most people, deep down - at least I hope - would prefer to be thoughtful instead of ignorant. Jordan Peterson compels people to be thoughtful. 

To be truly openminded, one has to let their ego subside entirely. When so much of your values rely on a reference to identity, it can be hard to let that go. Therefore many intellectually minded people on the left fall victim to the emotional appeal of progressive rhetoric. However, unwavering tolerance; irrationality in the name of morality; or a moral/cultural decline in society ought to be examined with legitimacy, even if they do fall under the "politically incorrect" category. Politically correct causes cannot be the justification for accepting any idea touted by people in society. That's where Jordan Peterson comes in. And that's what makes him both so beloved by many, and feared/loathed by just as many. He completely delegitimizes any argument that stems from one's personal struggles... regardless of how truthful or valid they may be. Instead he demands some other metric in support of one's cause. 

So here are my thoughts: We know Jordan Peterson is committed to rejecting identity politics, and we should understand why this makes perfect sense. In many cases the left wing of the ideological spectrum has completely gone off the rails - insofar as aggressively and unjustifiably promoting censorship among other infractions, all in the name of political correctness or "tolerance," progression, etc. Not only has this had some counterproductive effects in some cases, but it can and has stifled some discourse entirely. There are still some of us in society who value a productive conversation. We understand there is more than one side to the story; more than one perspective to keep in mind when promoting values or policy decisions. As such, we gravitate toward Peterson's approach to reason.

And yet, Jordan Peterson fans must be careful to not automatically value everything he says, just because we very much appreciate the way he evaluates and presents his argument. We have to maintain rationality and virtue above our allegiance to his rhetoric. In reality, one's personal struggles are absolutely variables to consider when looking at a cultural (moral or political) problem. Sometimes Peterson and his supporters too aggressively deny that fact, or are too busy fighting/defending themselves to consider this important factor in the debate.

Jordan Peterson does not have all the answers. He is not always right. He often presumes or speaks on things without full grasp of the subject, and sometimes gets hypocritical. But so what? None of us have all the answers; none of us are always right. We all presume, assume, confuse or misrepresent at different times. We can all be convicted of hypocritical or conflicting values. The important thing is that we we do our best to understand and to explain to and from one another, and that we keep trying to search for truth, justice and meaning in this ever-changing and infinitely complex world. I think overall, Jordan Peterson presents a net positive insofar as promoting these things, at least at face value. It's up to us to carry out these ideals, and collectively rise above Peterson's personal wrongs to find righteousness.

What do you think? Are you a fan of Jordan Peterson? Why or why not? Post your most loved/hated Jordan Peterson quips here.

If you are a fan of Bernie - do you agree and why? 

Who was she?