'White Liberal College Graduates’ Are ‘the Least Tolerant'

[Chester]

Harvard Law Professor: ‘White Liberal College Graduates’ Are ‘the Least Tolerant’

Commenting on a recent finding that many Democrats would have trouble continuing a friendship with anyone who is pro-President Trump, Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule remarked that the least tolerant among us are “white liberal college graduates.”

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that 35 percent of Democrats believed that a friend’s vote for Donald Trump would “strain” their relationship. Among white Democrats, the figure is even higher, with 40 percent saying that they would have trouble maintaining a friendship with someone who supported Trump. Nearly half (47 percent) of those who described themselves as “liberal” Democrats said their friendship would suffer with someone who favored Trump.

By contrast, the share of Republicans who say that a friend’s vote for Hillary Clinton would strain their relationship was a mere 13 percent, just over a third the number of Democrats who say that a friend’s vote for Trump would do the same:

see data and read all here (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/22/harvard-law-prof-white-liberal-college-graduates-least-tolerant/)

[Justplain]

Gosh, think what your friendships would be like if you voted for the green party candidate?

[Chester]

Staring at 29:56... relevant to this thread (I will be connecting the dot shortly)

Z6S7WI4H4kU

[Fellow Aspirant]

Interesting post. Interesting study. But I'm not so sure that the good professor has drawn a reasonable conclusion. I think it likely that he's trying to get a rise out of Trump haters in order to make some self-serving waves. I suspect he's being a bit of a troll here. He's making a very broad, untenable generalization about a group of people based on one question. Taking a common sense approach, I think it is entirely likely that one can dislike someone without being intolerant of humanity as a whole. If I see a youngster breaking into a house, (not even mine!) I will call the police. I will not tolerate criminal activity. That doesn't make me an intolerant person. I don't generalize the behaviour of one miscreant to alter my view of all teens. Those who react negatively to Trump are probably tolerant of other people in other situations. If tolerance is "an acceptance of or patience with the beliefs, opinions or practices of others; a lack of bigotry.", then I'd have to agree with him, but if he's trying to disparage the characters of those who literally don't know how to speak to Trump supporters, then I'd say he's way off base. Anti-Trump feelings are a very special case. I'm surprised that an intellectual at a liberal university would commit such a fundamental error in his approach. Naw, just kidding - they do this kind of thing all the time. :bigsmile:

Where he gets into the weeds is equating rejection with intolerance. This, by the way, is something I find to be common in conservative thinking as a whole. You see, to me, friendship is a condition that exists between two or more people in which they can share ideas and things. So for someone who despises Trump it is next to impossible to find a way to communicate with an ardent supporter. Friendships, even marriages will suffer under these restrictions. One must understand the others' thinking in order to have any hope of conveying a meaningful thought. And that's the rub: liberals think that they can see the emperor's nakedness with crystal clarity, and are dumbfounded to find that other people really can't see it, or don't even really care about it.

I am no fan of hip hop. If I have a friend that is a big fan, we'll find it hard to share much on the topic. No biggie, there are lots of other musical genres to share. But for those who are affected by the behaviour of the president of a powerful country like the U.S., what he does really does matter. And how do you discuss these matters with a friend if there is such a yawning gulf between one anothers' reality? Answer? You don't. You leave it aside, if you can. But the friendship will have a serious blind spot. Hence, I think the liberals are simply recognizing the inherent difficulty, and choosing to disengage rather than get involved in an argument.

And by the way, the comments below the study's posting are overwhelmingly from conservatives who see it as a vindication of their deep hatred of liberal thinking.They now have a new club to beat their enemies with. I am sure that FOX news will quickly and gleefully incorporate this study into their scripts. Ironic that their vitriol - violent and hateful, is aimed at shouting down what they see as liberal hatred. Go figure. :hippie:

B.

[Chris Gilbert]

Not really surprised, in my social circles I've seen many angrily blame third party voters for the coming END OF THE WORLD ever since DT was elected.

[Chester]

Maybe then we should look at the Pew study more closely?

Polling Shows Half of Liberal Democrats Troubled by Socializing with Trump Voters

Highlights -


A Pew Research Center survey found that nearly half of liberal Democrat respondents admit that discovering that a person voted for Donald Trump would make a friendship with that person difficult.

In contrast, a large majority of conservative Republicans indicated to pollsters that they could put politics aside for the sake of a friendship with a person who voted for Hillary Clinton. Almost three-fourths of conservative Republicans said a person’s vote for Hillary Clinton would not put a “strain” on their relationship.

Read it all here (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/22/unfriend-polling-shows-half-liberal-democrats-troubled-socializing-trump-supporters/)

[A Voice from the Mountains]

These surveys are obviously wrong because the only intolerant people you ever hear about are all the rednecks are in town rioting and lynching people like a bunch of uncivilized animals, destroying their own places.

https://api.asm.skype.com/v1/objects/0-eus-d1-5a7fbf6c4a28bd78493a70fce35aa7bc/views/imgpsh_fullsize


Oh no wait my bad those are just the liberals that do that too.


Canadians won't have to worry about this much longer except out in the frozen wilderness, because all white people are being purged out of Canada anyway. Out of a present population of about 36 million (smaller than California's 39 million), Canada has for some time now been officially accepting a "sustainable" 250,000 immigrants a year, but in reality, through various other programs, has been accepting somewhere between 1 and 2 million immigrants a year and they are almost exclusively Muslims from the Middle East and Africa channeled through George Soros NGOs. Soros began doing this in 1998. Canada of the 1990's doesn't even exist anymore. It's becoming Islamified little by little, exactly like Britain. They're even considering laws now to make it illegal to criticize the government's immigration policy, as hate speech.

These are Toronto's demographics from 2006:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Toronto_census_2006_pie_chart_visible_minorities_population_characteristics.png/300px-Toronto_census_2006_pie_chart_visible_minorities_population_characteristics.png

Since then the "non-visible minorities" (ie white people) have decreased to about 30% of the population in Toronto and the aforementioned Muslim Arabs are making up nearly the entire increase. Not Chinese, or Koreans, or even Iranians or some other civilized people, but people straight out of Somalia or war-torn Syria or Iraq or Libya or some other 3rd world hell hole. This isn't being compassionate, it's being stupid and allowing an evil Hungarian psychopath to destroy your country to create his grand vision of a borderless world where people are openly genocided.

[ramus]

An old saying,....save ideas separate people .. What a lost .. Isn't this what the fighting is all about .. Are we lilliputians

[Helene West]

Canadians won't have to worry about this much longer except out in the frozen wilderness, because all white people are being purged out of Canada anyway. Out of a present population of about 36 million (smaller than California's 39 million), Canada has for some time now been officially accepting a "sustainable" 250,000 immigrants a year, but in reality, through various other programs, has been accepting somewhere between 1 and 2 million immigrants a year and they are almost exclusively Muslims from the Middle East and Africa channeled through George Soros NGOs. ...

Since then the "non-visible minorities" (ie white people) have decreased to about 30% of the population in Toronto and the aforementioned Muslim Arabs are making up nearly the entire increase. Not Chinese, or Koreans, or even Iranians or some other civilized people, but people straight out of Somalia or war-torn Syria or Iraq or Libya or some other 3rd world hell hole. This isn't being compassionate, it's being stupid and allowing an evil Hungarian psychopath to destroy your country to create his grand vision of a borderless world where people are openly genocided.

But VFM - WHITES WILL NOT BOND. They are terrified of being called a racist even when they know they are being called that by the real racists. They need a pan-caucasian movement across all the countries of the western world, absolutely not to harm anyone but to protect themselves and I don't just mean physically, but legally, psychologically, etc. But if whites don't honestly deal with their fear and stop trying to hide behind 'being a good christian', or 'being a good person' like the new agey, kumbaya love everyone crap, the elites will get exactly what they are looking for, the islamification of Europe and all western countries and a White Diaspora.

We are all being trained to hate Caucasians. Non-whites are encouraged to depersonalize and hate whites and whites are being trained to be self-loathing. A case in point is the Minneapolis shooting of a white Australian unarmed female by a black somali muslim police officer. OMG all the politicians are rushing to give support to the 'Somali Community', screw the poor woman. What did she do? She heard noises and called 911 cause she thought a crime may being committed next door. She gets shot by the somali, no one knows why and he's not talking. Why should he? All the self-loathing white liberals are coming to his aid with 'compassion'.

A silly female on this forum (presumably white from her avatar) actually told me I needed to plant a garden and listen to miles davis! Lol, this is because of my commenting on this grim reality you are speaking of. This silly (if not cowardly) female doesn't get that she has a life of relative peace and safety because she is living in the remnants of a white christian civilization. When the remnants of this civilization are gone, when she has blasting pseudo-music on one side of her that she dare not complain about and her kids are being bullied and terrorized by RoC's (racists of color) at school or her husband can't find work because the places he interviews has a majority of non-whites and they don't want him around, she'll get it. But she, or her kids, will probably have to move and move and move again...
But apparently whites would prefer to be shot dead than called a racist...

[A Voice from the Mountains]

There are already radicalized minorities (think Black Lives Matter, which is basically modern Black Panthers but worse, also Soros-funded) openly talking about genocidal policies by about 2050 when whites become the minority.

The writing is on the walls.

https://api.asm.skype.com/v1/objects/0-eus-d1-a91eabe618b9e8027bdce4c764ed9a26/views/imgpsh_fullsize


They're going to say (and are already saying in fact) that we deserve to lose our culture, laws, etc. because basically we ruled the world and now it's "their turn" and we should all be ashamed of ourselves but they can do no evil because all minorities were all historically oppressed.

https://api.asm.skype.com/v1/objects/0-eus-d5-71f61a4fe8d12de594b8f0c798fa0418/views/imgpsh_fullsize



And get a load of this:

https://api.asm.skype.com/v1/objects/0-eus-d1-d5755c2269e9c9bec73d089ee65d0818/views/imgpsh_fullsize


Absolutely priceless. Good job liberals. Exactly what we needed right now.

[Chester]

and a blast from the Avalon past referring to the "trend change" in Canada from the POV of a Canadian one year ago -

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?94927-Anti-immigrant-sentiment-in-Hungary&p=1119708&viewfull=1#post1119708

particularly this brilliant post #9

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?94927-Anti-immigrant-sentiment-in-Hungary&p=1120276&viewfull=1#post1120276


yo, just so people know, '347 volts', is actually a RMS sine wave calculation, where the voltage is 'averaged'. the real number is a 981 volt sine wave, 490volts positive then 490 volts negative (opposite polarity of flow), at a 60hz repeat cycle. That's enough to kill. When I was 'hit' by fluorescent fixtures, it's blackout time, kinda thing. Once I was hit by a leaky pair of them, wired out of phase. Pretty darned close to electric chair treatment.


Regarding the discussion, a society and culture can handle only so much dilution. then it collapses. Nevermind the other complex myriad of pushes and pulls from the new ingredients other than basic inclusion/absorption.

What Europe seems to have been set up for, is collapse by overt dilution and interference.

Then to use the mounting anger and response to unite and kill off Islam and the middle east. (seems WWI and WWII and all the mid-east wars haven't done the job) Just one branch of directed opportunity and potential, in creation and act/flow.

It appears to be a forced march by oligarchs hiding in the backdrop. Left open enough so that it can be fine tuned along the way. Besides the game being played on much deeper levels like technology control via erasing historical finds or controlling them, erasing history, contaminating lands so they are unrecoverable (Fallujah - depleted uranium, etc)

This may seem obvious to some but it must be said until people understand that it is purposeful manipulation for unspoken purpose. Unspoken .....so that it is not easy to discern and correct for.

[Helene West]

[QUOTE=A Voice from the Mountains;1168498]

They're going to say (and are already saying in fact) that we deserve to lose our culture, laws, etc. because basically we ruled the world and now it's "their turn" and we should all be ashamed of ourselves but they can do no evil because all minorities were all historically oppressed.


VFM - I can't open those little icons on your posts. Don't know if its just my computer but never seen them before.

Anyhow regarding above, would you know what to say to racists of color when they give you their racist crap? I know what I would say. I was going to list some of it here but I don't think it's worth the energy, so little interest. Here you're more inclined to get the types that will say they belong to the Human Race, not the white race. I like that one. Other races celebrate their race but not whites. Their cool with being made into blanks.
Many tacitly intend to leave the problem to their children and grandchildren. How cool is that...

[Fellow Aspirant]

Well , I can see that this thread has morphed into a consideration of intolerance in general, but I'd still like to chime in. Surprisingly for a few members here, I have to agree with AVFTM on the Muslim threat. I think that the Liberal guilt and self loathing that has manifested in the last twenty years or so has blinded my country to a certain reality wrt having thousands upon thousands of people settle in Canada who fundamentally (no pun intended - okay, it was intended) disagree with our culture and its liberal values. And we do have a preponderance of liberal values, even amongst our conservative populace. By liberal, I mean secular and all that that entails: free speech, secular schools (yeah, I know they've got issues), voted-in representation (yeah, again, I know, but bear with me here), freedom of association, equality for all races and genders, and a justice system that is derived from the British jurisprudence set of laws and punishments. Against this I set the laws of Sharia. Yeah, the Muslim populace is willing to go along with our liberal values, but as the percentage of Muslim believers in our citizenry increases, things tend to change. To wit, here are the results of a study made by a man who wanted to see if there was a correlation between the two. It's a wake up call for sure ...

Subject: A REAL EYE OPENER


Here is a perspective by Dr Peter Hammond.

Dr Hammond’s doctorate is in Theology.

He was born in Cape Town in 1960, grew up in Rhodesia and converted to Christianity in 1977.

Adapted from Dr Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat: Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult.

In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components.

The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 3% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens.

This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 2%
Australia -- Muslim 2.5%
Canada -- Muslim 2.8%
Norway -- Muslim 2.8%
China -- Muslim 2.9%
Italy -- Muslim 2.5%

At 3% to 8%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.

This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 5%
Germany -- Muslim 6.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 7.7%
Spain -- Muslim 8%
Thailand -- Muslim 7.6%

From 8% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims.

They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.

This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 12%
Philippines -- 9%
Sweden -- Muslim 8%
Switzerland -- Muslim 8.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 8.5%
Trinidad& Tobago -- Muslim 10.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law.

The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 15% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions.
In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings.

Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.
Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana -- Muslim 15%
India -- Muslim 19.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 18%
Russia -- Muslim 21%

After reaching 25%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non- believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace.

Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrassas are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life.

It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law.

The national police do not even enter these ghettos.

There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities.

In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large.

The children attend madrassas. They learn only the Koran.

To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.

Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 2 billion Muslims make up 28% of the world's population.

But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers.

Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Adapted from Dr Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat

Please forward this important information to any who care about the Future of our Country. When will WE wake-up?

This last line is from the friend who forwarded the study to me. I think it's a very good question. Liberals who poo-poo such thinking as paranoid bigotry are really missing a truth that is staring them in the face.

B.

[Helene West]

[QUOTE=Fellow Aspirant;1168622]
B.[/QUOTE..."Well , I can see that this thread has morphed into a consideration of intolerance in general, but I'd still like to chime in...."

lol. of course you would... knock yourself out...maybe someone will read what you wrote. you must know it won't be me!! lol...

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Anyhow regarding above, would you know what to say to racists of color when they give you their racist crap?

There are all kinds of other relevant facts to think about here, when the inevitable topics of slavery and racial oppression come up as arguments against the Constitution itself.

1) Most white people in the US are descended from people who arrived here in the north, through places like Ellis Island, after slavery had already been abolished (which was early in the North). So collectively blaming white Americans for slavery is already overgeneralizing in a big way.

2) African warlords and slave traders acquired slaves from defeating enemies, criminals, etc. and sold them to white European traders. According to the theory of collectivized guilt this should make black people themselves guilty for slavery.

3) Western civilizations began outlawing the slave trade before the other major slave trade routes into the Middle East and around the Indian Ocean. In parts of Africa they still practice slavery to this day, and Islamic culture is also notoriously oppressive. The West has actually been the most liberal and forward-thinking of these civilizations throughout this historical period.

There are whole books written about this stuff but what leftists are trying to do is rewrite history to support a communist coup against the Constitution itself.

They won't stop at painting the South as nothing but racists, but our founders too, and the Constitution, and so they'll say they have to get rid of all of that history because it's just racist. But like I said above, we have always been on the forefront of human rights in the West. They are rewriting our history.

[Desire]

Fellow Aspirant
That is exactly what Soros and the NWO want...to take away national identity and for that matter personal identity as well. Meanwhile the elite rub their hands and wait.

[Chester]

B.[/QUOTE..."Well , I can see that this thread has morphed into a consideration of intolerance in general, but I'd still like to chime in...."

lol. of course you would... knock yourself out...maybe someone will read what you wrote. you must know it won't be me!! lol...


I read it and I appreciate his contribution... I also read his other post and appreciate it as well though I did find more disagreement welling up in the first post as opposed to his last post.

The only way we get anywhere is with respectful conversation. Note also, out of respect for all other sub forums and major category forums within this forum, I have (and for awhile now) chosen to restrict my commentary that is centered in politics to the Politics sub-forum. I suggest others consider this as well. Project Avalon is at risk of being reduced to a forum of political banter (and I saw how I was playing a role in that and thus created this "rule to self").

[Helene West]

B.[/QUOTE..."Well , I can see that this thread has morphed into a consideration of intolerance in general, but I'd still like to chime in...."

lol. of course you would... knock yourself out...maybe someone will read what you wrote. you must know it won't be me!! lol...


I read it and I appreciate his contribution... I also read his other post and appreciate it as well though I did find more disagreement welling up in the first post as opposed to his last post.

The only way we get anywhere is with respectful conversation. Note also, out of respect for all other sub forums and major category forums within this forum, I have (and for awhile now) chosen to restrict my commentary that is centered in politics to the Politics sub-forum. I suggest others consider this as well. Project Avalon is at risk of being reduced to a forum of political banter (and I saw how I was playing a role in that and thus created this "rule to self").

You're killing me, Sam

You put up an overtly racial thread title knowing the topic elicits strong emotions, then when the folks with strong views predictably appear to contribute you imply they are bad (be respectful, blah, blah). Nice. What do you call that? bait and switch?, mind f**king?

All he got back was precisely what he put out - an equal but opposite reaction.

He accuses/labels - "Well , I can see that this thread has morphed into a consideration of intolerance in general, but I'd still like to chime in" and got back a little sarcasm with me saying I'm not reading his post. Big deal. I've been called names on this forum and gee whiz, somehow I survived.

Two folks here at least are concerned about the cultural genocide of their race and AS USUAL we get called intolerant for even speaking about it. Nothing will ever be addressed if we can't even speak about it. I've read enough of his posts to know where he's coming from and I'm not interested and would have not responded at all but his first sentence out of the gate was labeling and accusatory of us who are concerned and that got a little sarcasm. Are we banning sarcasm now? I haven't seen sarcasm being censored on other threads. How many of those little icons have I seen on this forum holding up the Sarc sign?

You opened the door for a topic that NEEDS discussion and then you panic or pull the carpet out from under. I would have liked life as a Jane Austen novel but that's not what it is. There's a million topics in the world to write about and you chose what you chose, why?
Your cautionary message was disappointing and unnecessary.

[Chester]

B.[/QUOTE..."Well , I can see that this thread has morphed into a consideration of intolerance in general, but I'd still like to chime in...."

lol. of course you would... knock yourself out...maybe someone will read what you wrote. you must know it won't be me!! lol...


I read it and I appreciate his contribution... I also read his other post and appreciate it as well though I did find more disagreement welling up in the first post as opposed to his last post.

The only way we get anywhere is with respectful conversation. Note also, out of respect for all other sub forums and major category forums within this forum, I have (and for awhile now) chosen to restrict my commentary that is centered in politics to the Politics sub-forum. I suggest others consider this as well. Project Avalon is at risk of being reduced to a forum of political banter (and I saw how I was playing a role in that and thus created this "rule to self").

You're killing me, Sam

You put up an overtly racial thread title knowing the topic elicits strong emotions, then when the folks with strong views predictably appear to contribute you imply they are bad (be respectful, blah, blah). Nice. What do you call that? bait and switch?, mind f**king?

All he got back was precisely what he put out - an equal but opposite reaction.

He accuses/labels - "Well , I can see that this thread has morphed into a consideration of intolerance in general, but I'd still like to chime in" and got back a little sarcasm with me saying I'm not reading his post. Big deal. I've been called names on this forum and gee whiz, somehow I survived.

Two folks here at least are concerned about the cultural genocide of their race and AS USUAL we get called intolerant for even speaking about it. Nothing will ever be addressed if we can't even speak about it. I've read enough of his posts to know where he's coming from and I'm not interested and would have not responded at all but his first sentence out of the gate was labeling and accusatory of us who are concerned and that got a little sarcasm. Are we banning sarcasm now? I haven't seen sarcasm being censored on other threads. How many of those little icons have I seen on this forum holding up the Sarc sign?

You opened the door for a topic that NEEDS discussion and then you panic or pull the carpet out from under. I would have liked life as a Jane Austen novel but that's not what it is. There's a million topics in the world to write about and you chose what you chose, why?
Your cautionary message was disappointing and unnecessary.

Actually I just feel there's a better way to dialogue that lowers the chances of alienating those who might partake in discussion of difficult to discuss matters such as this.

The thread title is the article title and it is based on the results that came from the study the article cites. As far as it being "overtly racial" I did not take it that way and I think the reason why is because I view the whole "racial" arguments to be emotionally triggering to those who are susceptible to such and that much if it is used by folks who I consider "shallow thinkers." In fact I was hoping to head in the direction that I could support what I see as "deeper" views and yet, I am thinking perhaps I was foolish to think I could do so and get away with it.

If all we can do is give back equal and opposite reactions then how do we expect anyone on the fence or the other side of the fence to consider our own views such that they might then reconsider their own?

EDIT ADDED:

Helene... I almost PM'd this to you but instead decided to post it. I really like you... a lot. I like your honesty the most. I also agree with many of your views and yet often find it hard to thank your posts because I feel you express them too strongly, again... at times. But I really do appreciate you here at PA and far more than you may have previously considered. Sam

[Helene West]

Sam

You think you are writing just about the posts on this thread? I think you are still reverberating from your immigration thread and are scared that it will turn into that, shall we say 'feisty', arena. Your worry about that is resulting in being a little controlling here and trying to make me feel that something is wrong with me and I'm just not buying.

Take a look at this forum. It's a huge forum and the vast majority don't get involved in the political threads. So for the handful of us who do, leave us be. let us speak. Nothing bad happened here. Nothing outrageous. I think you're just having deja vu.

I wasn't going to continue posting on this thread anyhow because I'm starting to accept that whites that aren't trying to hide and deny what is happening to us are too busy to do anything about it, at least right now. It's a dicey situation ignoring symptoms until they get too hard to endure and then it may be too late, but that seems to be a collective choice for the moment. I'm better off posting my own thread on the subject.

I like you too, thanks for saying that. I appreciate many of your threads.
You say I express too strongly. You're entitled to your opinion in that regard.

As far as your - " If all we can do is give back equal and opposite reactions then how do we expect anyone on the fence or the other side of the fence to consider our own views such that they might then reconsider their own?"
-Well, that's not all I do.
-I'm not running for office so I'm not overly concerned with trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking.
-I get much more out of discussion with like-minded than with the opposite. I sometimes need to read or hear out the opposite especially for voting on an issue. Sharing and expanding our info and reach with like-minded is what feels good to me. Because you're talking to someone who feels the same doesn't mean they don't have other points on the subject you haven't thought of. My growth isn't dependent on annoying back and forths with folks who clearly aren't reading what I'm saying or cherry picking the words they want and spinning their own diatribe from it. Been there done that.
Thanks Sam and have a good evening wherever you are!

[Chester]

When I was was in 8th grade back in 1970 here in Texas, I had to take a mandatory class called "Social Studies." In that class we were made to study the Constitution of the United States. Each student had to memorize and then repeat from memory the preamble to the constitution. We had to learn about the structure of our government and why it was made that way. We were taught that our government was a government with checks and balances and was the best thing going. We were taught that for democracy to work, we needed a free and fair press. And we were taught about each of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) what they were about, what they stood for and why.

Taught... or perhaps one might say... indoctrinated.

And then came the rest of my life. And over the course of this life I have come to look at all forms of government and all forms of economic systems. I have been to other countries and experienced the people there (who are effected by other forms of government and other economic systems) and not just a few and not just one tiny cultural slice or one "color" or one religion...

And I have come to regret that I didn't pay much attention to that 8th grade class when I started to see glimpses here and there of the wisdom behind the creation of the USA and so I went back and actually studied it all but this time with intent to consider each and every tenant put forth in the documents created by the founding fathers.

And so I came to appreciate the United States Constitution.

But when I talk with folks of a generation or more younger than myself, I see a trend and that trend is not only do that have little awareness of what actually went into the formation of these documents, I noticed that in the younger and younger came forth a greater attitude of not just lack of interest in what founded this country but that many had attitudes of disdain for not just the founders but for the documents of which they had no actual knowledge of the contents! How could that be?

And so this led me to research the why and it did not take long to discover a massive takeover of most of the entire educational systems in the US by those who not only taught to indoctrinate what is now referred to as "liberalism" but they were taught to have disdain for the founding fathers and what they attempted to create and ohhhh... by the way, they just happen to be males and ohhh by the way, they just happen to be white.

So the point that I had hoped to get to in this thread that I created here in the Politics sub-forum was to point out that it makes total sense that "White Liberal College Graduates are the least tolerant" of folks who "voted for" and "support" Donald Trump because they are taught to... they are indoctrinated to, all their friends are treated the same and everyone wants to keep their friends and keep their relationship opportunities alive and so of course they have to demonstrate themselves to be "social justice leaders!" and show zero tolerance for the evil trump whose supporters see him firmly behind the traditional interpretations of the Constitution, especially things like the 2nd amendment and who already got a conservative judge on the US Supreme Court and who is poised to get two and maybe three and even four more after his eight years are up.

All of the above was written to put this thread aside... and since there appears to be a misinterpretation of where I was headed with the immigration thread, I will probably slam dunk that one next.

Apologies to those who might be open to dialogue and perhaps expansion of their knowledge base.

[Fellow Aspirant]

[QUOTE=Fellow Aspirant;1168622]
B.[/QUOTE..."Well , I can see that this thread has morphed into a consideration of intolerance in general, but I'd still like to chime in...."

lol. of course you would... knock yourself out...maybe someone will read what you wrote. you must know it won't be me!! lol...

LOL Well, thanks for the feedback, although in this one case you may be doing yourself a disfavour, because, like I said at the outset, I have to agree with VOTM. :bigsmile:

I gather I have upset you. I'd like to apologize for whatever I did, and ask you to continue to consider my point of view in the future. For my part, I promise I will do the same with your posts.

Politics is a volatile area; I'd like to think that we can both agree to disagree, and keep the dialogue open. This is, after all, a forum of free exchange, and fine one at that.

Disengage if you feel you must, but know that I hold no ill feelings toward you or your points of view. I will continue to respect all members' contributions.

Namaste, Helene

Brian

[Fellow Aspirant]

Re:
And so I came to appreciate the United States Constitution.

But when I talk with folks of a generation or more younger than myself, I see a trend and that trend is not only do that have little awareness of what actually went into the formation of these documents, I noticed that in the younger and younger came forth a greater attitude of not just lack of interest in what founded this country but that many had attitudes of disdain for not just the founders but for the documents of which they had no actual knowledge of the contents! How could that be?"

Well, I'm not sure how legit these vids are, (I'm sure we've all seen a version of something like them) but while humourous, they are also undoubtedly alarming and go a long way to justifying the claim of America's dumbing down ...

This is from last year, taken on the campus of Washington's George Mason University: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MwN5nDajWs

And here's a quickie - same campus. Students shown an 8x10 of Ronald Reagan were unable to identify him. Kim Kardashian, on the other hand, had universal recognition:

http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/college-kids-stumped-by-reagan-photo/

B.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

When I was was in 8th grade back in 1970 here in Texas, I had to take a mandatory class called "Social Studies." In that class we were made to study the Constitution of the United States. Each student had to memorize and then repeat from memory the preamble to the constitution. We had to learn about the structure of our government and why it was made that way. We were taught that our government was a government with checks and balances and was the best thing going. We were taught that for democracy to work, we needed a free and fair press. And we were taught about each of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) what they were about, what they stood for and why.

Taught... or perhaps one might say... indoctrinated.

This kind of constitutional law and order and the sense of civic responsibility is about the best thing you could possibly indoctrinate someone with, when you consider the alternatives. Though it took me a while to fully appreciate that.

I had to learn the same thing, memorize preamble, etc. etc., so it's good they at least continued this practice between your generation and mine. Generation Z'ers might not even be getting this kind of education anymore.



And so I came to appreciate the United States Constitution.

But when I talk with folks of a generation or more younger than myself, I see a trend and that trend is not only do that have little awareness of what actually went into the formation of these documents, I noticed that in the younger and younger came forth a greater attitude of not just lack of interest in what founded this country but that many had attitudes of disdain for not just the founders but for the documents of which they had no actual knowledge of the contents! How could that be?

It started with liberals during the Bush II years (and I was not a fan of Bush myself, to say the least) and Obama fed the fire for his whole 8 years, demonizing police and patriotic Americans, and trying to paint the entire country and our entire history in racial overtones of the rich white man and his laws keeping everyone down. Another 8 years of that and we would begin to look like South Africa under apartheid (which is coming back today).


I think the evolution in liberal mindset went like this:


2000: Bush stole the election from Gore! (Which he totally did btw.)
mid 2000s: War in Iraq is illegal and immoral (which it was) and protests are being suppressed (which they were)...

Conclusion: America is becoming fascist under right-wing dictator Bush using "muh turrsm" as an excuse for endless war. (All true enough.)

Here comes Obama ... Says all the right ****. Even I believed him at first, and thought since he was a black man maybe he actually did represent the little people.

BZZZZT -- Wrong answer.

But everyone that stayed on the Obama bandwagon and kept drinking the Kool Aid went into the whole social justice spiral accelerating all this "political correctness" (social Marxism) to insane levels. All of that follows standard Communist propaganda techniques like what Alinsky promotes. No shocker since Alinsky helped make Obama. Add the well-rooted Clinton crime syndicate into the mix, running all over the world selling children, organs, drugs, etc., and you've got the incompetent, self-absorbed beginnings of a Communist failed state.

[Fellow Aspirant]

Then there's the rising tide (of mostly unreported) sex assaults in Europe. It's bad enough that public swimming pools have posted signs (in the offenders' languages) warning them that sexual assault is wrong:

A public swimming pool in the town of Perchtoldsdorf, Austria has put up signs warning people not to grope women or barge into the female locker rooms, according to a story in the UK’s Sun newspaper. The posters, which translate their message in Arabic, French, and English (but not the native German) appear to be targeted towards migrants, many of whom have recently come to Austria from Northern Africa. The insinuation is clear: Middle Eastern immigrants fail to understand that their norms and values – which apparently include a daily diet of sexual assault – are not welcome in the countries that were kind enough to let them in.

But by all means, let’s throw open the U.S. borders to all the refugees who want to migrate. What could go wrong?

From The Sun:

One sign shows a man entering the women’s dressing room with the word “STOP!” and “entry is forbidden in non-designated areas” written next to it.

Another sign show a picture of a young teen in a bikini with three hands seemingly wanting to grope her.

It reads “NO!” and explains that “physical contact with other guests is forbidden”.

[…]

Local citizens and politicians have reacted to the apparent necessity of such signs.

MP Christian Hoebart of the far-right Freedom Party of Austria (FPO), which is opposed to immigration, argued that the signs should not be needed in a “civilised society”.

He wrote: “Is it once again a submission (by our society) for the mass immigration of completely uneducated and culturally alien people?”

Why yes. Yes it is.

http://www.fixthisnation.com/conservative-breaking-news/thanks-refugees-public-swimming-pools-no-longer-safe/

What kills us is how short-sighted liberals are. They want to take in a virtually-unlimited number of refugees to show the world how enlightened and gracious they are, completely oblivious to the fact that they are making their countries less liberal and open with every additional migrant they let in the door. These migrants have grown up in oppressive, fundamentalist cultures where women are barely more than vehicles for procreation and battery. They SCOFF at the very values that these liberals are trying to demonstrate by letting them into their countries. They loathe freedom and will eventually kill it, and their hosts will defend their crusade against their own culture. It’s one of the most stunning developments in global history; when have we ever seen so many countries bend over backwards to accommodate people who want to destroy everything they believe in?

B.

[turiya]

Students Love Socialism...
But Can't Define What It Is
(Published on Jul 15, 2017)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMxTEZ7JizI

[Chester]

Thanks turiya... and ties right in with my thread and leads to a point I hoped to make which is...

"Education" in the US (and probably elsewhere too) has become anything but. When the vast portion of graduates from the US educational system say they believe in, for example, "socialism" and yet cannot define what that means, we must consider what methods are being used on these young people such that they feel compelled to support something which they don't know anything about.

Here is an other example - "global warming / aka climate change" (as a danger and that it is predominantly caused by mankind).

Another - Pretending the cries of concerns about forced integration of one culture into another is "religiophobia" (pick your specific religion and replace "religio" with that religion's label. Pretending the cries of concerns about forced integration of one culture into another is racism if it is a circumstance that the culture being forced in is entirely or predominantly one race or one color.

My wonderment surrounds the lack of free thinking as if to do so risks losing something more important such as "your friend network" or the perception you think others should have about you. That so many (especially the young) are so vulnerable to this.

And so where's the conscience among so much of today's teachers? Isn't teaching more about working with the young so that they can better think for themselves?

Another thing I have to ask teachers that justify leftist (or any"ist") indoctrination is: "If you happen to ideologically agree with much of the tenants of the left, why would you not have the confidence to allow those tenants to stand against opposing ideas in a way your students are able to decide for themselves? Because if these students still chose a leftist ideology, wouldn't their choice not only be authentic, but create advocates who actually had a clue about what they think they believe in such that they could then go out and argue the merits?

If a position stands on its merits, there would be no reason to force that upon the youth (the more vulnerable).

[Helene West]

Sam
So very true everything you said in above post#27. Buzz words, buzz phrases and trigger points. That is their communication today. God help you if you say the wrong buzz word or buzz phrase.
The scariest is that you can trigger them without being quite sure which of what you were saying was the trigger...

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Sam
So very true everything you said in above post#27. Buzz words, buzz phrases and trigger points. That is their communication today. God help you if you say the wrong buzz word or buzz phrase.
The scariest is that you can trigger them without being quite sure which of what you were saying was the trigger...

That's why I just start saying worse and worse politically incorrect things in front of people and just hope that it sparks a discussion, an entrance for me to defend the things I say with reason.

Unfortunately everyone is too much of a cuck to say anything.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

[CENTER]Students Love Socialism...
But Can't Define What It Is

Or Marxism. Or Communism. They don't know the histories of these things either.


American Revolution compared to the French Revolution. The difference between the (little "r") republicans of America and the Jacobins in Paris define the core of the problem we are still having today.

It is the difference between the ideals held up as a new standard in the US Declaration of Independence, compared to France's Declaration of the Rights of Man. The first emphasizes the sovereignty of the individual. The second emphasizes the sovereignty of the nation-state. One sets the stage for Washington, the other for Napoleon.

Though the Jacobins are most identified with the Republicans of modern France, their form of republicanism was authoritarian at its heart, and the shady financial interests and rowdy urban mobs that brought the Jacobins to power went on to bring Marxists to power in the same way, with the same authoritarian streak at the heart of their ideologies.

America was founded by a dying breed of Anglo-Norman-Celtic warrior people who were tough and rugged and very independent. We kept their laws and traditions and held them as sacred to us. Continental Europe became increasingly dominated by absolute monarchies, Kaisers, emperors and tzars, and the kind of freedom we initially enjoyed in this country was totally alien to those people except where some people held out more or less by force. This is why continental Europeans poured here by the thousands and millions when we were still a virtual wilderness. There was no centralized nation-state dictating how people lived and every person could be responsible for their own fate. That's the basis for our country.