Abolish intellectual property???

Hey look, another article that removes intent from the definition of racism so that it can turn yet another generally important issue into a race based argument. I’ll just file that over here with “Malaria is racist.”

Seriously, this is an important issue, but you’re going to just push more people away with the race…

You know, he’s disclosing it in the show, and he believes in deregulation. That at least is honest. And I don’t read Mike Rowe as being anti renewable resource, as there are some legit questions about the viability of those resources that (thankfully) are getting easier to answer now that the initial costs for things…

I’m pretty sure that, ineloquent as Romostradamus was up there, he’s reacting to Ralgha’s idea of holding people liable for speech and opinions, which is of course pretty ironic since he’s also showing a level of bigotry in his own comments. Don’t get me wrong, you’re not going to find me defending Fox News or Tucker…

You’re a journalist and bad news makes you sad and tired? I think it’s time for a career change.

Ah you are right. The READER needs to figure out your grammar assumptions. 

Could also be they are not interested. Not every imbalance that is different from a normative distribution indicates a structural equity problem. 

56% of Americans can swim. If only 1% of swimmers apply for swimming scholarships, does that also signal a “systemic problem?” This logic is just so limited. 

Can we all stop trying to define words that are already well defined? Egalitarianism doesn’t innately have anything to do with wether or not you think there is or isn’t inequality, it’s merely the state of prioritizing social equality for all people. You can be an Egalitarian and believe that there is structural…

It would be nice to see the data on how many women applied and were denied these scholarships compared to men. That seems kind of relevant, no? You know, before we all start enraging each-other and repeating our talking points.

I’m of the mindset that arguments should be taken on their individual merits, and I’m pretty worried about the drift in political debate towards demagoguery. Words like never are easy ways to demonize people and make them “all bad” or “all good” which I think is part of a serious problem we face civically. Recent…

Agree. I’m purely responding to Wuthany Tangclano who said Shapiro “never” presented a serious argument in his life, which is simply not the case.

Hate is not he answer. 

I don’t think I made a claim. I’m purely responding to Wuthany Tangclano who said Shapiro “never” presented a serious argument in his life, which is simply not the case.

Totally agree. I’m not at all defending his views on Royalty etc. I’m purely responding to Wuthany Tangclano who said Shapiro “never” presented a serious argument in his life, which is simply not the case.

Probably not.

I think you misread my reply. I’m not at all defending his views on Royalty etc. I’m purely responding to Wuthany Tangclano who said Shapiro “never” presented a serious argument in his life, which is simply not the case.

I tend to agree.

Oh I’m not at all defending his views on Royalty etc. I’m purely responding to Wuthany Tangclano who said Shapiro “never” presented a serious argument, which is simply not the case. 

Note that you said “generally.” But your original post said “never.” And that is.... simply... not... true.