Ostrakon

For the record, I did vote for her in the actual election, but that is an extremely oversimplified analysis of how Trump got elected.

Yeah, more people in the right states voted for him. But her and the DNC fucking with the primaries, offering zero conciliation to progressives and arrogantly assuming Trump didn't stand a chance play a huge factor. For the vaunted "most qualified candidate ever" this was her race to lose, and blaming it on sexism is just a thought terminating cliche at this point.

Fuck off Hillary. Nobody asked you. You fumbled 2016 and gave us this asshole in the first place, and you should have the decency to hide in shame the rest of your miserable life.

What do you hope to accomplish with all this vague Debbie downer spam? Every post you make seems to be unconstructive, nebulous crybaby shit.

That's a really good point, thanks for bringing that up

Its almost like nonsensical parables are a recurring theme in religions in general and we shouldn't be assuming a bunch of mystical morons from a thousand years ago knew any better.

This is probably not the whole reason but in my opinion it is the primary one. Young men are indirectly being told their problems don't matter because when they are raised they get slapped down for trying to take attention away from women's issues, and that leaves a very sour taste in their mouths that makes it easy for charlatans like Tate to take advantage of. Especially low-status white men getting hit with the double whammy of being assumed to be just fine because everyone knows how easy it is to be a white man, right? Thanks, apex fallacy.

The times where men have tried to form positive social support structures like the MRA/MGTOW movement, they are derided as being misogynistic, which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy as the outside attacks reinforce those assumptions. If you look at these groups today, they are absolutely infiltrated by misogynist and racist voices, but that's not how they started. Gamergate is another example of this phenomenon.

I'm not trying to invalidate the issues women face or trying to claim that men have it worse. It seems we collectively treat this as a zero sum game instead of getting folks the help they need for the specific problems they face, and it creates a situation where people who could otherwise be saved are radicalized by assholes who are all too willing to capitalize on that and radicalize them. Worse, the continuing polarization makes it very difficult for anyone left of center to walk back and try to address men's issues without immediately being beset upon by a mercilessly vocal minority of feminists who see any attempt to help men as a distraction from their own issues.

Remember that each person parroting Tate's rhetoric isn't some hyper-privileged fratboy who is looking for an excuse to do violence to women. Some of them certainly are, but I would bet that a majority of them are low-status men who don't see any other options.

If the government stated you were a gang member, would that be enough evidence for you? If so, I don't know what to tell you. If not, do you need assistance pointing out the flaw in your logic?

I can't tell if you're seriously arguing or if this entire thread is in bad faith, but my general policy is to approach online arguments as though the other party is being sincere. If not for you, then for anyone else who might be spectating.

I'd recommend this book to help you expand your ability to think more critically. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality_(book)

How do you know this person is an illegal gang banger? What assurances do you have that that statement is actually true?

Also, I don't think you understand the point of my comparison. They didn't start putting Jews in concentration camps - it started with rhetoric like what you are parroting, desperately justifying, without evidence or due process, that some people didn't deserve their rights. That is the foothold authoritarianism needs to erode and eventually destroy the rights of everyone.

The Jews in Nazi Germany were stripped of their rights of citizenship and forced to emigrate. And it started with flimsy justifications like we are seeing with this Garcia person. Did he commit some crime that merits deportation? Maybe. Personally, I'm incredibly skeptical of anything this administration claims. Either way, how can we say for sure without a trial? Without evidence that can be verified without the game of telephone that is the incredibly biased media? You keep repeating these claims as though they are facts, but do you actually have any direct evidence?

Without due process, what is stopping authorities from lying about any of that and carting you off to El Salvador? You assume this can't happen to you, and yet, you have zero actual proof of these alleged crimes. The man's wife literally issued a statement contradicting your position.

I recommend you visit the Holocaust museum in DC and really pay attention to how this sort of rhetoric played out in Germany. If every last person doesn't have the same rights, then those rights by definition do not exist. If he's a criminal, he can and should be convicted by a jury of his peers. You keep repeating that he is a criminal but you have not addressed the central question of why this person doesn't have the same right to a trial any other individual would.

Let's flip the script and see if it makes sense to you. Let's say a Democratic president made the same claims about you. Your wife objects, but is ignored. You claim you have a legal right to be in this country, are a citizen even, but the president just lies and you are deported by their minions anyway.

Do you see why that wouldn't be acceptable?

Stop vascillating. Answer my original questions directly. What about this case demands the suspension of due process. If what you say is true (which I am incredibly dubious of), why wouldn't you just prove this in a court of law rather than immediately jump to.an extra judicial deportation?

If it can happen to this guy, it can happen to you.

Are you saying that the alleged word of his wife (which I have only heard of indirectly, and never from a reputable source) is enough to suspend due process?

EDIT: Sounds like his wife also thinks this is bullshit. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5255035-abrego-garcias-wife-statement-domestic-violence-protective-order/

Stop spreading misinformation.

Weird, i thought conservatives were supposed to care about the Constitution. Is this like a satire community or something?