The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Dragon Angel]

Hence why I say "nobody gives a shit." Maybe it should read "nobody gives a shit, outside of the knuckleheads who would write things like 'Social Justice Must Be Destroyed' in their signature block."

Linking a "guide" from fucking Vox Day no less.

I'm not much a Clinton fan either but damn if people are trying to trump (ha) up Clinton's emails as some politically equal condemnation with Trump's clowning and rhetoric. This "news" is so done it's become an undead horse.

[Wild Zontargs]

Yes, yes. Burn the heretic for his crimethink. Oh, wait:



I'm not American, and even if I was I wouldn't be a Republican. Trump's an egotistical asshole, and Hillary's crooked as fuck. Both can be true simultaneously.

[Terralthra]

"I just start kissing them..Just kiss. I don’t even wait,' Trump said. “And when you’re a star they let you do it."

I think we all knew something like this was going to come out eventually.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, yes. Burn the heretic for his crimethink. Oh, wait:

I trust that compass about as far as I can throw it. As far as I can determine, it exists mainly so that libertarians can pat each other on the back and congratulate one another about how enlightened and pro-freedom they are, while distancing themselves from all the troubling troglodytes they allied with to form the Republican Party. Because obviously the Democrats are like, halfway to being Stalinists!

I'm not American, and even if I was I wouldn't be a Republican. Trump's an egotistical asshole, and Hillary's crooked as fuck. Both can be true simultaneously.

Exactly what specific, concrete evidence do you have of crooked-as-fuckness in Clinton's case, and how are you defining crooked-as-fuckness for reference?

I mean, in an election against Donald Trump, exactly what does Clinton need to have done in order to even show up on the radar as 'crooked?' For it to even matter except as a dog-whistle version of "therefore, vote Republican?"

The email scandal simply doesn't form a big enough blip on the radar. It does not contain specific evidence of wrongdoing; it contains evidence that is vaguely consistent with highly nonspecific wrongdoing that we do not have any other compelling reason to suspect actually happened.

The Republicans have been setting up smoke generators around the Clintons in hopes that people would decide that the smoke meant there must be fire for twenty-five years now. The only reason "Servergate" is even a thing the public is still talking about is because:

1) A lot of people expect to see that fire so much that they'll fixate on ANYTHING if it gives them a pretext for believing Hillary Clinton is evil. Before Servergate, it was Benghazi, despite how nakedly ridiculous it was to attribute the disaster in Benghazi to malice on Secretary Clinton's part.

2) Bluntly, "Servergate" seems to be the worst and nastiest thing anyone can find to accuse Clinton of in the past several years. And if that's the worst they can come up with, Clinton just doesn't have anything consequential going against her.

[maraxus2]

Yes, yes. Burn the heretic for his crimethink. Oh, wait:

I'm not American, and even if I was I wouldn't be a Republican. Trump's an egotistical asshole, and Hillary's crooked as fuck. Both can be true simultaneously.

Fuck your graph. That tells us literally nothing about what you believe, merely that you know how to fill out an online quiz. It's much less of an indicator of what you think than having a Vox Day essay in your sig block.

You're not a heretic, and you're certainly not committing crimethink. You're breaking your wrist trying to jerk some life out of a nothingburger story that the public clearly doesn't care about because you despise Hillary Clinton.

"I just start kissing them..Just kiss. I don’t even wait,' Trump said. “And when you’re a star they let you do it."

I think we all knew something like this was going to come out eventually.

Whoever does Clinton's oppo research and media strategy should get a raise. Releasing this gross quote in a Friday newsdump, when nobody is talking about anything, two days before the debate? It's almost like they're trying to goad him into saying something really dumb in front of millions of people.

[Wild Zontargs]

I trust that compass about as far as I can throw it. As far as I can determine, it exists mainly so that libertarians can pat each other on the back and congratulate one another about how enlightened and pro-freedom they are, while distancing themselves from all the troubling troglodytes they allied with to form the Republican Party. Because obviously the Democrats are like, halfway to being Stalinists!

Fuck your graph. That tells us literally nothing about what you believe, merely that you know how to fill out an online quiz. It's much less of an indicator of what you think than having a Vox Day essay in your sig block.

OK, so what would be sufficient evidence to show that I can disagree with the "Social Justice" portion of the Left without being some crypto-fascist alt-right troll? I've voted Green in the last several Provincial and Federal elections, if that helps.

I can't agree with someone on a specific issue without being exactly the same as them? Fuck, I guess all us atheists are mass-murdering Stalinists.

Exactly what specific, concrete evidence do you have of crooked-as-fuckness in Clinton's case, and how are you defining crooked-as-fuckness for reference?

I've tried that one before. Since the American left is mostly circle-jerking around Clinton (because TRUMP!!!111one), anything bad about her can be written off with "that's a right-wing source / only right-wingers believe that." Like maraxus2 said, everyone who cares has already made their decision on where they stand.

I don't get a say in who wins, and I'll be more insulated than American citizens from the fallout either way, so I'm free to note that neither one is someone I'd want running things. Being anti-Clinton != being pro-Trump, and since I can't vote, the "it's the same thing when the votes are counted" argument doesn't matter to me.

I mean, in an election against Donald Trump, exactly what does Clinton need to have done in order to even show up on the radar as 'crooked?' For it to even matter except as a dog-whistle version of "therefore, vote Republican?"

Ah yes, the fallacy of relative privation. A is bad, but we should ignore that entirely, because B is worse.

The email scandal simply doesn't form a big enough blip on the radar. It does not contain specific evidence of wrongdoing; it contains evidence that is vaguely consistent with highly nonspecific wrongdoing that we do not have any other compelling reason to suspect actually happened.

The Republicans have been setting up smoke generators around the Clintons in hopes that people would decide that the smoke meant there must be fire for twenty-five years now. The only reason "Servergate" is even a thing the public is still talking about is because:

1) A lot of people expect to see that fire so much that they'll fixate on ANYTHING if it gives them a pretext for believing Hillary Clinton is evil. Before Servergate, it was Benghazi, despite how nakedly ridiculous it was to attribute the disaster in Benghazi to malice on Secretary Clinton's part.

2) Bluntly, "Servergate" seems to be the worst and nastiest thing anyone can find to accuse Clinton of in the past several years. And if that's the worst they can come up with, Clinton just doesn't have anything consequential going against her.

OK, imagine this isn't an election year. If it came out that Clinton was doing all sorts of questionable things, and the US government, right up to the White House, was running interference to attempt to hide that fact, would you not be losing your shit? Ignoring it (because TRUMP!!!111one) seems really short-sighted to me.

[SolarpunkFan]

"Social Justice"

My question is: when did "social justice" become a bad thing?

Giving women the right to vote was social justice.

Desegregation was social justice.

Legalizing gay marriage was social justice.

And ensuring that these rights are upheld is social justice. Why are so many people implying that social justice is a bad thing now?

[Dominus Atheos]

"I just start kissing them..Just kiss. I don’t even wait,' Trump said. “And when you’re a star they let you do it."

You left out the best part of that quote. The full quote is

"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything," he said in the 2005 conversation. "Grab 'em by the pussy."

[Wild Zontargs]

"Social Justice"

My question is: when did "social justice" become a bad thing?

Giving women the right to vote was social justice.

Desegregation was social justice.

Legalizing gay marriage was social justice.

And ensuring that these rights are upheld is social justice. Why are so many people implying that social justice is a bad thing now?

Because the loudest "Social Justice" proponents are now the nutters doing stupid shit. Things like demanding that "their" universities ban all opposing viewpoints, calling for segregated classes and housing at universities because the mere presence of white people is harmful to minorities, insisting that non-minority writers who write minority characters are guilty of "cultural appropriation", suggesting that non-minorities shouldn't be hired (and may be let go) if a company has a non-proportional workforce, calling for "guilty until proven innocent" standards for sex crime investigations, and similar insanity.

All the things you listed are good things, and things that I support, but that isn't what the groups currently operating under the banner of "Social Justice" are about.

[Dragon Angel]

OK, so what would be sufficient evidence to show that I can disagree with the "Social Justice" portion of the Left without being some crypto-fascist alt-right troll? I've voted Green in the last several Provincial and Federal elections, if that helps.

I have a word of advice: Don't consider Social Justice Left as one giant bloc?

just a thought

"Social Justice"

My question is: when did "social justice" become a bad thing?

Giving women the right to vote was social justice.

Desegregation was social justice.

Legalizing gay marriage was social justice.

And ensuring that these rights are upheld is social justice. Why are so many people implying that social justice is a bad thing now?

It comes from people listening to right wing ideologues characterizing all of activism, feminism, social justice, et. al. as useless authoritarian wastes that should be horsewhipped out of society as the demons they are.

Or something.

I have no idea, whatever the case, it shows a genuine lack of research and/or concern as to what social justice actually is.

[Dragon Angel]

Because the loudest "Social Justice" proponents are now the nutters doing stupid shit. Things like demanding that "their" universities ban all opposing viewpoints, calling for segregated classes and housing at universities because the mere presence of white people is harmful to minorities, insisting that non-minority writers who write minority characters are guilty of "cultural appropriation", suggesting that non-minorities shouldn't be hired (and may be let go) if a company has a non-proportional workforce, calling for "guilty until proven innocent" standards for sex crime investigations, and similar insanity.

All the things you listed are good things, and things that I support, but that isn't what the groups currently operating under the banner of "Social Justice" are about.

I trust you'll cite sources for all those claims, as well as prove that all of social justice stands behind them.

[Simon_Jester]

I've tried that one before. Since the American left is mostly circle-jerking around Clinton (because TRUMP!!!111one), anything bad about her can be written off with "that's a right-wing source / only right-wingers believe that." Like maraxus2 said, everyone who cares has already made their decision on where they stand.

Bluntly, the problem is that there is this huge cloud of manufactured scandal around Clinton, and I'd have said the same back in 2008 when the idea of Trump running a credible campaign would have been a joke. If you can't specify exactly what you actually know Clinton did, in a way that makes it clear it isn't just another fabricated pile of nonsense spread by the cottage industry of professional Clinton detractors, why bother?

I mean, in an election against Donald Trump, exactly what does Clinton need to have done in order to even show up on the radar as 'crooked?' For it to even matter except as a dog-whistle version of "therefore, vote Republican?"

Ah yes, the fallacy of relative privation. A is bad, but we should ignore that entirely, because B is worse.

If B is, say, ten times worse, ignoring bad things about A starts to sound like a pretty good idea.

When B has done massive, blatantly criminal things, and is constantly flouting laws and norms on a regular basis, and shows signs of having almost every character flaw in the book... Obsessing over one bad thing done by A that has had at most nebulous consequences, with no specific evidence of criminal intent...

That is not the sign of an unbiased observer. That is the sign of someone who is trying to do a hatchet job on A for personal reasons.

Now, you may be perfectly happy to take out a second hatchet, regaridng Trump, if you get the chance. But for some reason, you picked the hatchet marked "Servergate" to swing first. Clinton was the target you really thought needed going after, even as you protest left-wing sympathies. It really isn't surprising that people doubt your motives in that situation.

OK, imagine this isn't an election year. If it came out that Clinton was doing all sorts of questionable things, and the US government, right up to the White House, was running interference to attempt to hide that fact, would you not be losing your shit? Ignoring it (because TRUMP!!!111one) seems really short-sighted to me.

Please list the "all sorts of questionable things." I mean, are you accusing Clinton of assassinating inconvenient political witnesses, or of reckless handling of government email, or of something in between?

[Wild Zontargs]

I trust you'll cite sources for all those claims

I can source all of those, but:

as well as prove that all of social justice stands behind them.

the loudest "Social Justice" proponents

If you're just going to insist that I defend a straw-man, why should I?

[Dragon Angel]

If you're just going to insist that I defend a straw-man, why should I?

Oh don't be daft. We all know quite well you're trying to characterize all of social justice as a singular entity trying to push evilness unto this world.

Concession accepted though?

[Wild Zontargs]

I've tried that one before. Since the American left is mostly circle-jerking around Clinton (because TRUMP!!!111one), anything bad about her can be written off with "that's a right-wing source / only right-wingers believe that." Like maraxus2 said, everyone who cares has already made their decision on where they stand.

Bluntly, the problem is that there is this huge cloud of manufactured scandal around Clinton, and I'd have said the same back in 2008 when the idea of Trump running a credible campaign would have been a joke. If you can't specify exactly what you actually know Clinton did, in a way that makes it clear it isn't just another fabricated pile of nonsense spread by the cottage industry of professional Clinton detractors, why bother?

Hold up. back in June, we both agreed that Clinton had been incredibly stupid about the emails.

Imagine the headline was this: "Department of defense removes security cameras and lamps around the Pentagon because the SecDef insists on driving his own vehicle and keeps hitting the poles." That's the level of stupid we're dealing with here. It isn't about the filters, it's about the arrogance and stupidity that could easily have been avoided just by following proper procedures. But no, rules are for other people, so we should fuck everything up just because doing it right inconveniences the boss.

I agree with you, and I hate stuff like this, and if the Republicans had chosen to nominate someone who follows procedures and respects them rather than being a big ball of puffery and ego who can't go more than a few years without defrauding someone, I might seriously consider letting the sheer stupidity of what Clinton did impact my vote.

Has your opinion actually changed, or is it just inconvenient now? I'm not saying "vote Trump", I'm saying "absent comparisons to Trump, Clinton is a terrible choice".

If B is, say, ten times worse, ignoring bad things about A starts to sound like a pretty good idea.

When B has done massive, blatantly criminal things, and is constantly flouting laws and norms on a regular basis, and shows signs of having almost every character flaw in the book... Obsessing over one bad thing done by A that has had at most nebulous consequences, with no specific evidence of criminal intent...

That is not the sign of an unbiased observer. That is the sign of someone who is trying to do a hatchet job on A for personal reasons.

Now, you may be perfectly happy to take out a second hatchet, regaridng Trump, if you get the chance. But for some reason, you picked the hatchet marked "Servergate" to swing first. Clinton was the target you really thought needed going after, even as you protest left-wing sympathies. It really isn't surprising that people doubt your motives in that situation.

Everyone else is already doing a bang-up job of listing Trump's failings. I could join in the circle-jerk... or I could actually post something else about the campaign, rather than Me Too-ing. If failing to attack the "right" people often enough makes me a bad guy, then the state of political discourse is well and truly fucked.

OK, imagine this isn't an election year. If it came out that Clinton was doing all sorts of questionable things, and the US government, right up to the White House, was running interference to attempt to hide that fact, would you not be losing your shit? Ignoring it (because TRUMP!!!111one) seems really short-sighted to me.

Please list the "all sorts of questionable things." I mean, are you accusing Clinton of assassinating inconvenient political witnesses, or of reckless handling of government email, or of something in between?

Hey, leave the tinfoil out of this. Her personal business dealings have also been "iffy", and even The New York Times was willing to say that in 2015. She's perfectly willing to change her publicly-stated opinions to whatever she thinks will get her votes, while continuing with whatever policies she actually wanted in the first place in private. We both already agree that she fucked up with the emails, and that:

We're only ever going to fix things like this after we find a way to convince the top-level management class in America as a whole that they are not above the law. We've spent several decades creating that attitude.

Turning the election into a coronation for Clinton does the opposite of that.

[FireNexus]

Just want to remind everyone that it has only been two weeks since Ted Cruz decided that his best option was endorsing Donald Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

"I just start kissing them..Just kiss. I don’t even wait,' Trump said. “And when you’re a star they let you do it."

Article from New York Times as well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/po ... .html?_r=0

Warning: article and audio recording are potentially NSFW.

Trump effectively has admitted to sexual assault, bragged about it, on tape.

And finally, far too late, we're seeing some real back lash from Republican leadership.

If we take Trump at his word, then you tried to make a God damn rapist President. Their is no damage control for that. I'm going to enjoy watching your party implode, you worthless fuckers.

[Wild Zontargs]

If you're just going to insist that I defend a straw-man, why should I?

Oh don't be daft. We all know quite well you're trying to characterize all of social justice as a singular entity trying to push evilness unto this world.

Concession accepted though?

Negative. I never claimed that all social justice ever == "Social Justice" as currently being insane, and will not attempt to prove such a thing.

demanding that "their" universities ban all opposing viewpoints
calling for segregated classes and housing at universities because the mere presence of white people is harmful to minorities
insisting that non-minority writers who write minority characters are guilty of "cultural appropriation"
suggesting that non-minorities shouldn't be hired (and may be let go) if a company has a non-proportional workforce
calling for "guilty until proven innocent" standards for sex crime investigations

Those are just the first relatively-recent news articles on each of those points that came to mind. Let's skip the "that's not a good enough example", "but I want to see an actual Social Justice advocate demand each one", and the "that's No True Scotsman Social Justice advocate" steps. I'm not even going to entertain the "but Not ALL Social Justice" argument, because I never claimed any such thing.

[Lord Insanity]

Notice he offers a solution to the single party stranglehold some states have while still retaining the mechanic that allows a minority candidate a slim change to win a close election.

Why do you think it's a good thing in a democracy for the candidate who gets the most votes at the polling booths to not be the winner ?

It is a protection against tyranny of the majority. By giving the minority candidate a slim chance to win in a close election it forces the candidates to be more moderate and respectful of everyone or lose horribly to those that do.

If the majority candidate is guaranteed to win why would they care about the minority at all? I don't think it is a coincidence that every time I see the whole "let's abolish the electoral college" thing come up every few years it is usually by supporters of the party that thinks they can't lose otherwise this time.

The entire U.S. government is built with checks and balances of power to prevent any one group from dominating. The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution (which were added before all 13 states of the time would even ratify the thing) specifically guarantees certain rights regardless of what the majority believes. Well at least that is the ideal anyway. (The rhetoric being all inclusive was one of the driving forces for the call to abolish slavery for example.)

[FireNexus]

Here's my question: Next week, when pretty much the whole GOP unendorses Trump, does Trump basically tell the deplorables to burn the GOP house down? Because if you combine the downballot knock on effects with even a tenth of Trump's diehards following such a command, you would have a wave election like we haven't seen since at least 1994.

[FireNexus]

This fucking election. From "Trump might be President" to "We might get back the House, the senate and a couple of swing state houses" in 14 days. I don't think I can take this bipolar shit for much longer.

[Dragon Angel]

Negative. I never claimed that all social justice ever == "Social Justice" as currently being insane, and will not attempt to prove such a thing.

Because the loudest "Social Justice" proponents are now the nutters doing stupid shit.

OK, so what would be sufficient evidence to show that I can disagree with the "Social Justice" portion of the Left without being some crypto-fascist alt-right troll? I've voted Green in the last several Provincial and Federal elections, if that helps.

All the things you listed are good things, and things that I support, but that isn't what the groups currently operating under the banner of "Social Justice" are about.

Care to revise your statements then, sir?

demanding that "their" universities ban all opposing viewpoints

Faceless young and inexperienced students who had the audacity to meet with the university president and discuss solutions. Clearly completely representative of the social justice movement. Next.

calling for segregated classes and housing at universities because the mere presence of white people is harmful to minorities

Okay, can you now point out how these two colleges (WHOOPTY DOO) making these decisions are in any way majorly supported by the social justice movement? I'm waiting for that. No, local college unions are not all of social justice. According to the first article too, setting aside spaces for certain groups has been a standard of practice for that specific college (it mentions veterans and older students as examples).

And yes, I'm wary of these because from a surface glance some parts feel like things the civil rights movement fought against, but I'm going to need a lot more context than what these articles provide. I'm pretty sure a lot of other advocates I can think of would agree.

insisting that non-minority writers who write minority characters are guilty of "cultural appropriation"

Whoah whoah a thinkpiece by someone who was upset about someone else's speech? Stop the presses! Perhaps next time I talk about Richard Dawkins' Islamophobia I should let everyone know that atheism unilaterally supports the second class citizenship of all Muslim people.

The article leads into an unnuanced and naive viewpoint I have discussed with many writers, in which we had concluded "People not of certain groups could and should write characters of those groups, but do the fucking research first, or you end up with Chakotay of Star Trek Voyager". I imagine situations like that are what the writer was pissed about. The presentation is very flawed, but the message is sound.

suggesting that non-minorities shouldn't be hired (and may be let go) if a company has a non-proportional workforce

The BBC said in a statement: “As the Sun knows and has ignored, these are not jobs but training and development opportunities permitted under the Equality Act and to describe this as anti-white is utterly ridiculous and irresponsible.

“As we have an under-representation of people from ethnic minority backgrounds in script editing roles at the BBC it’s the right thing to do.”

...

The traineeships do not guarantee a job at the end of them but applicants who are successful in the roles are expected to be given the opportunity to progress within the BBC.

The third article describes a plan of affirmative action. Are you mad about that? Where is the mention of plans to fire people in a zero sum policy? The second article cites the Daily Mail, which is not exactly the bastion of honesty, and for all I know this could be complete speculation or intentional dishonesty on the person's part.

Try harder.

calling for "guilty until proven innocent" standards for sex crime investigations

This article links a two and a half hour video I'm not going to watch, and for all I know the lines may be misquoted or out of context, but assuming they are what they are: Again, one person. One person. Not the entire movement. Get that clear. Also why don't we discuss all the other stupidity other representatives and senators have done along with this one isolated and specifically cherrypicked example to associate with and caricature social justice.

...

Next time also, do us a favor and quote highlights around the sections most interesting to you. I'm not going through a wall of links blindly like this for you again.

Those are just the first relatively-recent news articles on each of those points that came to mind. Let's skip the "that's not a good enough example", "but I want to see an actual Social Justice advocate demand each one", and the "that's No True Scotsman Social Justice advocate" steps. I'm not even going to entertain the "but Not ALL Social Justice" argument, because I never claimed any such thing.

God forbid people call you out on your peddling bullshit. "No True Scotsman" entails you first proving all of social justice supports your ridiculous claims. As I quoted you in the beginning, your words heavily imply it and pretty much everyone responding to you sees them as such.

[Dragon Angel]

I can't edit my previous post anymore, but I should also add to my list of quotations from you, Zontargs: Your freakin' signature.

[Q99]

Aggh, I think I lost a big post of mine I was writing up....

Short version:
Hillary's corruption charges have been thoroughly investigated- and in fact, are not in fact charges, merely allegations, because all the investigations have been whether there *is* evidence of wrongdoing enough to even *start* a case, and even though these investigations have been some of the most extensive of all time, costing millions and run by her enemies, the answer is, "No, no they are not."

E-mails? Breaks regulation, but the Republican FBI director says they *never* charge people for that stuff, and also the only 'classified' information is not-actually-important stuff (like Drone Program information publicly released by the NYT the week before), sent between cleared parties for the purpose of making work easier.
Benghazi? Not in charge of defense there to begin with and proven to be guilty of nothing but 'being in charge while Clinton'.
Clinton Foundation? "A" rating on Charity Watch, a higher-than-normal 87% of it's money going to help rather than overhead, and the 'access' that people gained from it... turned out to be philanthropists involved in charity work.

Heck, the Whitewater Investigator- remember the first big Clinton scandal?- *Endorsed* her a few days ago, 'cause she's not corrupt and he knows it.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump has bribed state attorney generals involved in cases investigating him defrauding others out of payment, the Trump foundation has used charity money to fight lawsuits directed against him, he wants to form a deportation force and believes in pre-emptive warfare and doesn't get why we just can't use nukes, he's lost multiple discrimination lawsuits, he wants to ban religions, and he takes advantage of business partners as a matter of course.


"Just because Trump is horrible doesn't make Clinton not corrupt," is a statement that assumes the latter, but it doesn't change that unless she is a Ninja Wizard, the evidence says she's not corrupt, just tight-fisted with information and inclined to make some calls for expedience, breaking rules at times but nothing actually significant, according to the investigations *of her enemies*.

It doesn't matter where Wild Zontargs is politically, I've seen the same thing come from Green Party people, people who really really wish Bernie was in the race still, and similar. It's a lazy belief by those who don't like the major parties or who want to feel smug by saying whatever they believe is better than those who actually do make a call, but simply doesn't fit the facts. It's assuming guilt based on ignoring investigations, plus lots of eyebrow waggling.

This fucking election. From "Trump might be President" to "We might get back the House, the senate and a couple of swing state houses" in 14 days. I don't think I can take this bipolar shit for much longer.

The House is going to be pretty darn hard even if there's a D wave.

But yea, this has swung around.

[maraxus2]

OK, so what would be sufficient evidence to show that I can disagree with the "Social Justice" portion of the Left without being some crypto-fascist alt-right troll? I've voted Green in the last several Provincial and Federal elections, if that helps.

It doesn't. If you want people to seriously think you're not a weirdo internet Nazi, you could start by not quoting some weirdo internet Nazi in your sig block, which appears in every post you make.

Nobody gives a shit that you're an atheist, so you can stow that nonsense immediately.

I reject your incessant posts on Clinton's emails because: A. nobody cares, and B. it's pretty transparent to me that you're not a leftist. At least, you're not a leftist within the context of American politics. You're picking fights with basically powerless university students over things that do not impact your life in any meaningful way. Like most of the "anti-SJWs," really. And it seems to me that you're picking fights with them because they're upsetting your cultural applecart. If you're not an American, why do you give two shits that some community college in Chicago is having racially-segregated classes? Because it makes you mad on a deeply visceral level, not because it has any real impact on your life or global policy.

There's a thread for your weirdo ranting against SJW's. Use that if you want to have a long discourse, which most of the folks in this thread will ignore.

Dragon and Simon will be far more patient with you in debunking your idiotic worldview point-by-point. I'll simply say that you're not a member of my tribe, nor do I want people like you in my tribe. The rickety Rube Goldbergian machine of The Left in the US does not need dipshits who approvingly quote Vox Day in their coalition. If you cannot understand that, then there is not much more for us to discuss.

Edit:

Just to be crystal clear, there is not, so far as I'm aware, a single influential political figure in American politics asking for the kinds of things you assert "Social Justice" advocates are demanding. The social justice advocates that I know and love are demanding more basic things, like the right to vote. Or the right to use the bathroom. Or the right to not be killed by police. Your conception of "social justice advocates" demands is so obviously influenced by a small number of university students, it staggers the imagination. But it's an easy strawman to attack, particularly since university students basically don't have any real political power.

So I hope you feel glad about picking on a bunch of 20-year olds. Because that's what you're doing. You don't have any real political analysis, just a lot of vague shit from Reddit and the *chans. Gratz, dude.