Roseanne fired but Sarah Jeong hired?

Yer Da sells Avon

deco nate wrote: »

But I'm sure your man will be back to post yet again that posters on here are angry men. While yet again adding nothing else to this thread. Just like he/she does on all threads he/she posts on. But hey, putting a smiley at the end of the post means you won't get a ban.

You need to chill the heck out.

deco nate

I'm grand, sure thanks for your concern.

2 Scoops

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

There are a lot of angry men on this thread. Angry that everyone's not as outraged as they are.

I'm not angry about what she said specifically, nor do I get personally upset when I see someone ranting about white people. I'm annoyed and have been for a long time of the double standards, in this case their hiring standards. It's not just the NYT's, these double standards are found everywhere in modern culture whether that's social media, companies, institutions or college faculties. Left wingers, many of whom I'd describe as borderline radical, have a tight grasp on almost everything that wields power and influences culture.

That normally wouldn't be a problem, I'm progressive in the sense that I think gay's should have equal rights as should ethic minorities. I think gun control is a good idea and I'm anti war. I didn't vote in the abortion referendum because I didn't feel that strongly either way. I think religion is bad and as you know well I have strong views against Islam. The problem for me with the modern left is that those in power seem so strangled in this identity politics garbage, in my opinion it's cancer and is hugely dividing. To see the NYT's rewarding and promoting this radical viewpoint is what makes me mad about the situation. It's stemming down from the colleges and seeping into every aspect of society.

Outlaw Pete

P_1

Venom wrote: »

Sadly it's only going to get worse now that the outrage mobs have seen they can effect multimillion dollar tv shows and movies by doing nothing more than tapping away on keyboards and phones. This nonsense really needs to be stopped in its tracks but until the perceived loss from firing an individual from a project outweighs ignoring the mob, I don't see this stopping anytime soon.

True. Of course what the outrage mob also don't seem to get is that by their furious tweeting they're not actually getting through to the decision makers, rather they're making some poor sap who works in customer service's day even tougher (I was that soldier in one of the MNCs once). Not that I expect them to have such empathy given their position of privilege sat while tapping on their smartphones.

Brian?

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Brian I'm very interested in your opinion of hate speech laws (or policies on social media). Given your take on this, I assume you strongly disagree with them?

I do.

I’ve made the case that you can’t have hate speech laws in a society that espouses freedom of expression a good few times lately.

This wasn’t always my view, I’ve evolved my position on it.

I’m sure someone can travel through my posting history to find examples of me taking both positions, to save you all time, I used to believe in hate speech laws but changed my mind.

keffiyeh

Venom wrote: »

keffiyeh wrote: »

The boogiemen you see around every corner are hilarious. Are you a yank? Is this Reddit? Then why are you using idiotic terms like 'the liberal left'? Also, I love the irony of your witch hunt comment, when it's actually your team (the radicalized right) that are known for that, including the recent firing of James Gunn from directing Guardians of the Galaxy (not that I think he should be working for Disney with a Twitter history like that, but still, your assertion is both ironic and very disingenuous).

I wonder if it's more down to an agenda or ignorance on the subject in question, that result in such false statements from you.


Roseanne was not fired by the actions of people on the right.


James Damore was not fired by the actions of people on the right.


Justine Sacco was not fired by the actions of people on the right.


Aziz Ansari did not almost lose his career over the actions of people on the right.


So apart from Gunn who's firing I disagree with, who exactly have "the radicalized right" gotten fired?

keffiyeh wrote: »

I like how there is not even a hint of what she actually did to get fired in this post. It's frothing 'outrage mobs' who have nothing better to do apparently. It definitely has nothing to do with her saying black people look like apes and being an incredibly anti-Semitic edgelord (while being Jewish herself). Nope.

I love how there's a bunch of Irish lads heartbroken over Roseanne's plight, a Z Lister who hasn't been popular in 20+ years. I love all this genuine concern for the poor woman, there's clearly no other agendas at play here. Nope. Just loads of Roseanne fans on here. Haha.

I didn't mention what Roseanne did as it's pretty well know at this point, except it seems to you. She (Roseanne)







claimed Valerie Jarrett







(but not all black people as you claim or black people in general) looked like one of the stars of the Planet of the Apes movie in full makeup.

The radicalized right have been getting people fired since 2014, sorry if you're ignorant of the situation but you really will have to educate yourself. It's also being adopted abroad, in places like South Korea, where sexism comes very easy. Women at gaming companies have been fired for wearing t-shirts that say 'I don't need a prince' even. It's ridiculous mob bull and that is absolutely not a tactic of moderate individuals, it's the radicalized right that mass spam relevant social media accounts to get 'leftist libruls' fired. You just don't hear about it as often because there's no justification to actually fire them as much.

keffiyeh

professore wrote: »

And that woman doesn't look black.

What the **** did you just say? So because *you* think she doesn't look black she can have her appearance likened to that of an ape? Jesus Christ there are literal full blown racists in this thread where the hell are the mods?

Sal Butamol wrote: »

keffiyeh wrote: »

Sal glad you've got nothing to say except 'lol'. Reality is a bitch when you have an agenda innit.

Your grasp on reality is tenuous, at best. I really have better things to be doing than arguing with someone who thinks up is down and left is right.

Incorrect. I've been following the radicalized right very closely since 2014. You are one. Hence why you're unhappy about my comments.

Omackeral

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

According to the Serious Men of Boards...

There you go again. It's that type of sh*te that does you no favours. Why are you bringing gender in to it? Do you know the sex of each and every poster? If calling a racist a racist makes someone serious, then I see no problem. Racism is serious, no matter who's espousing it. They deserve to be called out do they not? You trying to make light of that by deflecting back to the person making the point is a low and sad tactic.

Oh yeah and your whole "e-cocks" comment was beyond weird. What the actual f*ck?

keffiyeh

Omackeral wrote: »

Racism is serious, no matter who's espousing it.

*Except when 'concerns' about it are coming from the radicalized right you can dismiss them safely enough, because of the hidden agenda and whataboutisms. Not saying this writer isn't one, haven't looked into her stuff, if she is, **** her too. It's not an either or situation.

SnakePlissken

keffiyeh wrote: »

You're showing your racist card too early by calling it ambiguous..

Highly hypocritical of Brian? to have thanked this post when he's so adamantly stated he can't consider someone a racist based on six years of tweets... but one Boards.ie. post is sufficient is it Brian?

Brian?

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Highly hypocritical of Brian? to have thanked this post when he's so adamantly stated he can't consider someone a racist based on six years of tweets... but one Boards.ie. post is sufficient is it Brian?

Can people please stop calling me a hypocrite.

Who was being called a racist in the post I thanked?

Omackeral

keffiyeh wrote: »

*Except when 'concerns' about it are coming from the radicalized right you can dismiss them safely enough, because of the hidden agenda and whataboutisms. Not saying this writer isn't one, haven't looked into her stuff, if she is, **** her too. It's not an either or situation.

I'll just stand by original statement that racism is abhorrent no matter who is doing it.

keffiyeh

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Highly hypocritical of Brian? to have thanked this post when he's so adamantly stated he can't consider someone a racist based on six years of tweets... but one Boards.ie. post is sufficient is it Brian?

"Why didn't ye like me Instagram photo????????"

Brian?

Omackeral wrote: »

I'll just stand by original statement that racism is abhorrent no matter who is doing it.

It is.

You don't find the false outrage from the alt right a little galling though?

Omackeral

Brian? wrote: »

It is.

You don't find the false outrage from the alt right a little galling though?

It would be on par with the leftists burying their head in the sand being purposely obtuse or making excuses.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the far right and the far left are two sides of the same coin.

SnakePlissken

Brian? wrote: »

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Highly hypocritical of Brian? to have thanked this post when he's so adamantly stated he can't consider someone a racist based on six years of tweets... but one Boards.ie. post is sufficient is it Brian?

Can people please stop calling me a hypocrite.

Who was being called a racist in the post I thanked?

He/she claimed Profesor was showing their racist card based on a single post, you thanked this claim so I can only assume you read and agreed with it... it's not as if there are certain posters who blindly thank posts just because they belong to someone in the clique.

Brian?

Omackeral wrote: »

It would be on par with the leftists burying their head in the sand being purposely obtuse or making excuses.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the far right and the far left are two sides of the same coin.

Why can't we apply critical analysis without being accused of being hypocrites or purposely obtuse?

Sal Butamol

keffiyeh wrote: »

The boogiemen you see around every corner are hilarious. Are you a yank? Is this Reddit? Then why are you using idiotic terms like 'the liberal left'? Also, I love the irony of your witch hunt comment, when it's actually your team (the radicalized right) that are known for that, including the recent firing of James Gunn from directing Guardians of the Galaxy (not that I think he should be working for Disney with a Twitter history like that, but still, your assertion is both ironic and very disingenuous).

keffiyeh wrote: »

What the **** did you just say? So because *you* think she doesn't look black she can have her appearance likened to that of an ape? Jesus Christ there are literal full blown racists in this thread where the hell are the mods?



Incorrect. I've been following the radicalized right very closely since 2014. You are one. Hence why you're unhappy about my comments.

Get back under your bridge

Brian?

SnakePlissken wrote: »

He/she claimed Profesor was showing their racist card based on a single post, you thanked this claim so I can only assume you read and agreed with it... it's not as if there are certain posters who blindly thank posts just because they belong to someone in the clique.

I'm lost. No idea what post I thanked that said that.

Maybe we should have a meeting of this clique. I wasn't aware I was a member.

keffiyeh

Omackeral wrote: »

It would be on par with the leftists burying their head in the sand being purposely obtuse or making excuses.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the far right and the far left are two sides of the same coin.

"Both sides"

You're fooling no one, especially with saying cringey ****e like 'leftists'. Seriously anyone I hear saying 'liberals' or 'leftists' just seem like the biggest spas. Yiz aren't American. And aside from being reductive and dismissive, it's incorrect. It's not a case of 'right' or 'left'. It's a case of 'extremists' and 'moderates'.

Sal you're a little triggered snowflake by the looks of things. You can't refute a single thing I say. You're so triggered all you can choke out is 'troll' and 'lol'. Poor snowflake.

Wibbs

dark crystal wrote: »

What Jeong wrote was undeniably racist and I cannot abhor this rabid divisiveness that seems to have risen to crazy proportions between the 'left' and 'right', men and women, natives and immigrants, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Divide and conquer never leads to anything good imo. Look what it's done to politics in The States.

Sure, everyone has a right to their point of view, but the name calling thing has gotten so juvenile and ridiculous, it's beyond parody at this stage. You can't on one hand deride the POTUS for his insanely juvenile tweets and then justify hiring a person who tweets childish inflammatory garbage like Sarah Jeong. Yes, that is hypocrisy at it's finest.

Social ****in' media doesn't create monsters, it does however let the cuckoos fly over their nests in full view of the public and it can lead to a poisonous kind of group think that infects the more gullible or vulnerable sections of society. Now more than ever, the poison cannot be allowed to get any more out of control. The politics of division have gone too far at this stage and that's precisely why the NY Times should be taking a stand on this issue.

Quoted for truth. This imported second hand from extremist America ballsology is getting bloody ridiculous at this stage. From both sides. When you hear someone from deepest Roscommon spouting stuff that could come from the lips of a purple haired social studies major from UCLA, or crapping on about "cucks" and how Trump is their apparent hero, it's firmly in the camp of farce and unfunny farce at that.

Wibbs

keffiyeh wrote: »

It's not a case of 'right' or 'left'. It's a case of 'extremists' and 'moderates'.

Sure, everybody else is "extremist" because they don't agree with you. It seems even if they don't quite agree with you, yet show no sign of being an extremist themselves. All dissent is heresy. Sounds pretty extreme to me. Then again another sure fire sign of an extremist of any stripe is a self awareness bypass. Irony and humour bypass also givens. And a near religious sense of being correct. And yep it is present in both sides. Demonstrably so.

keffiyeh wrote: »

Yiz aren't American.

Indeed.

Sal you're a little triggered snowflake by the looks of things. You can't refute a single thing I say. You're so triggered all you can choke out is 'troll' and 'lol'. Poor snowflake.

I do hope this part is ironic.

Omackeral

Brian? wrote: »

Why can't we apply critical analysis without being accused of being hypocrites or purposely obtuse?

Critical analysis is welcome, to me anyway. This Sarah Jeong character, however, has shown a sustained racist streak over the past few years and it deserves to be called out as such.

Besides, if you're comfortable condemning swathes of the far right then it's fair to say the far left are game for being tarred with one brush too. Applying one set of standards to one side and another to the other is kinda... and you're not gonna like this... hypocritical.

Omackeral

Brian? wrote: »

Maybe we should have a meeting of this clique. I wasn't aware I was a member.

They congregate in room 12 straight after The Serious Men of Boards meeting.

Omackeral

keffiyeh wrote: »

"Both sides"

You're fooling no one, especially with saying cringey ****e like 'leftists'. Seriously anyone I hear saying 'liberals' or 'leftists' just seem like the biggest spas. Yiz aren't American. And aside from being reductive and dismissive, it's incorrect. It's not a case of 'right' or 'left'. It's a case of 'extremists' and 'moderates'.

It's a direct response to the other poster saying alt-right, actually. I'm not gonna lump in the entire left with the nutcases on the fringes. What the f*ck is Yiz? Do you mean 'You'?

keffiyeh

Wibbs wrote: »

Sure, everybody else is "extremist" because they don't agree with you.

I do hope this part is ironic.

First sentence is incorrect and just putting words in one's mouth to hear what you want to hear, confirmation bias is a bitch eh. This thread is full of extremists, but a moderate could disagree with me on lots of issues and still be a moderate. I'm actually quite conservative leaning in a lot of areas, just not race or gender because I'm not a radicalized right nutbar. An indicator of an extremist would be dismissive and reductive labelling like 'leftist', 'liberal'.

Second one is also incorrect. It's not ironic, this whole radicalized right thing is global hun, unlike left/right dialogue which originated on the likes of Fox, sit down before you hurt yourself hun.

kubjones

keffiyeh wrote: »

"Both sides"

You're fooling no one, especially with saying cringey ****e like 'leftists'. Seriously anyone I hear saying 'liberals' or 'leftists' just seem like the biggest spas. Yiz aren't American. And aside from being reductive and dismissive, it's incorrect. It's not a case of 'right' or 'left'. It's a case of 'extremists' and 'moderates'.

Sal you're a little triggered snowflake by the looks of things. You can't refute a single thing I say. You're so triggered all you can choke out is 'troll' and 'lol'. Poor snowflake.

If it walks like a duck...

keffiyeh

Omackeral wrote: »

It's a direct response to the other poster saying alt-right, actually. I'm not gonna lump in the entire left with the nutcases on the fringes. What the f*ck is Yiz? Do you mean 'You'?

Difference being the radicalized right coined that (inaccurate term) and applied it to themselves. Or should I say yourselves. Moderates didn't apply 'leftists' to themselves, it gets used on them by radicalized right such as yourself to dismiss and be reductive about what they're saying. Please do try to follow along. Yiz wannabe yanks.

Wibbs

keffiyeh wrote: »

First sentence is incorrect and just putting words in one's mouth to hear what you want to hear,

"in one's mouth"? You're putting words in your own mouth? OK.

confirmation bias is a bitch eh.

Indeed it is.

Second one is also incorrect. It's not ironic,

Oh it is and it just got more so. Like I said irony bypass. A quality Harley street procured one by the looks of it.

this whole radicalized right thing is global hun, unlike left/right dialogue which originated on the likes of Fox, sit down before you hurt yourself hun.

This may sound like scintillating rhetoric in your head, but it really isn't.

keffiyeh

Wibbs wrote: »

"in one's mouth"? You're putting words in your own mouth? OK. Indeed it is.

Oh it is and it just got more so. Like I said irony bypass. A quality Harley street procured one by the looks of it. This may sound like scintillating rhetoric in your head, but it really isn't.

These are a lot of words for what amounts to *la la la I'm not listening*.

Brian?

Omackeral wrote: »

Critical analysis is welcome, to me anyway. This Sarah Jeong character, however, has shown a sustained racist streak over the past few years and it deserves to be called out as such.

You don't think the idea that it was satire is enough to investigate beyond the tweets? I do. That's critical analysis. It doesn't seem very welcome though.

Besides, if you're comfortable condemning swathes of the far right then it's fair to say the far left are game for being tarred with one brush too. Applying one set of standards to one side and another to the other is kinda... and you're not gonna like this... hypocritical.

What's wrong with condemning the far right? Honestly I can't believe I have to ask that. I can't condemn white nationalists, the KKK or the Aryan nation without doing the same to socialists or I'm a hypocrite? That's absolute nonsense.

But again, I'm condemning them on more than their Twitter feeds.

Wibbs

keffiyeh wrote: »

These are a lot of words for what amounts to *la la la I'm not listening*.

The irony and self awareness bypass here is truly staggering.

Brian?

Omackeral wrote: »

They congregate in room 12 straight after The Serious Men of Boards meeting.

Will there be pastries and coffee? If not I'll bring some. I really hope the Serious Men of Boards tidy up after themselves.

keffiyeh

Wibbs wrote: »

The irony and self awareness bypass here is truly staggering.

It truly is. You're genuinely oblivious.

Omackeral

keffiyeh wrote: »

Difference being the radicalized right coined that (inaccurate term) and applied it to themselves. Or should I say yourselves. Moderates didn't apply 'leftists' to themselves, it gets used on them by radicalized right such as yourself to dismiss and be reductive about what they're saying. Please do try to follow along. Yiz wannabe yanks.

If you're not with us, you're against us. Very fascist sounding.

How are you gonna label me a far-right radical when all I've done here is label a racist a racist. Feel free to point out any far-right (or alt-right or whatever it is this week) posts or points I've ever made on this website. I hate racists. Absolutely detest them. This far right nut job can be seen advocating a YES vote for Same Sex Marriage on this website. Ditto for Repeal the 8th. So extreme amn't I? So go on, quote my far right posts. I'll wait. Here's a spoiler, you won't be able to because I never have. You're a liar.

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

Sure, everybody else is "extremist" because they don't agree with you. It seems even if they don't quite agree with you, yet show no sign of being an extremist themselves. All dissent is heresy. Sounds pretty extreme to me. Then again another sure fire sign of an extremist of any stripe is a self awareness bypass. Irony and humour bypass also givens. And a near religious sense of being correct. And yep it is present in both sides. Demonstrably so.

Indeed.

I do hope this part is ironic.

I'm am extremist. I'm quite capable of recognising moderates. I'm also quite capable of liking people I don't agree with, as long as the debate remains polite.

Painting all extremists with the same brush is just another lazy generalisation. Another method of disengaging with the actual subject at hand and deflecting the debate into the relative merits of the positions and ideas people espouse.

"No point in listening to those extremists, they're all nutjobs". Hubris.

Brian?

keffiyeh wrote: »

Difference being the radicalized right coined that (inaccurate term) and applied it to themselves. Or should I say yourselves. Moderates didn't apply 'leftists' to themselves, it gets used on them by radicalized right such as yourself to dismiss and be reductive about what they're saying. Please do try to follow along. Yiz wannabe yanks.

Omackeral isn't a far right radical. It undercuts any serious point you may have to start name calling this way.

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

You don't think the idea that it was satire is enough to investigate beyond the tweets? I do. That's critical analysis. It doesn't seem very welcome though.

Pardon me if I find it up there with believing in creationism that you would be nearly so quick to waffle on about "critical analysis" if these tweets were aimed at any other group. TBH creationism would be ahead by a nose.

What's wrong with condemning the far right? Honestly I can't believe I have to ask that. I can't condemn white nationalists, the KKK or the Aryan nation without doing the same to socialists or I'm a hypocrite? That's absolute nonsense.

Something is either setting out to offend, rile up, or negatively point at an identifiable group of people in a prejudicial way, or it's not. It's not rocket surgery. If someone filters out certain groups because of their own worldview position, then yes, that is a bloody good example of hypocrisy. Even if the person is unaware they're doing it, which you seem to be. Hence I wouldn't call you a hypocrite as it's not deliberate, but I would still see it as hypocritical.

hatrickpatrick

Brian? wrote: »

What's wrong with condemning the far right? Honestly I can't believe I have to ask that. I can't condemn white nationalists, the KKK or the Aryan nation without doing the same to socialists or I'm a hypocrite? That's absolute nonsense.

That's an entirely false equivalence there - socialism is an economic ideology, white nationalists etc are identity politics ideologies.

What you can't do without being a hypocrite is to condemn the identity politics of the far right (KKK etc) without also condemning the identity politics of the far left (SJWs etc). Both are equally hateful, vitriolic and downright scummy, just with their guns aimed towards different groups.

If you find one less objectionable than the other, then the only logical conclusion is that you view one demographic as being less deserving of freedom from hate speech than another demographic. Either #KillAllMen and #KillAllWomen are both unacceptable, or they're both acceptable. Either #WhiteMaleTears and #BlackFemaleTears are both equally acceptable, or they're both equally unacceptable.

Anyone who does not believe this, is part of the problem. Being directly exposed to "this person gets to hit you with a stick, but you don't get to hit them with a stick, because reasons" directly breeds resentment, contempt, and ultimately hatred. This is particularly true when it begins at a young age, hence the growth of bitter, resentful TRP style men whose grievance against women began with "never hit a girl, even if she hits you first, just because she's a girl".

Human beings have an ingrained and entirely natural negative reaction to double standards directed against them. Normalise a double standard and you enrage an entire demographic, with unpredictable and often disastrous consequences.

Brian?

Omackeral wrote: »

If you're not with us, you're against us. Very fascist sounding.

How are you gonna label me a far-right radical when all I've done here is label a racist a racist. Feel free to point out any far-right (or alt-right or whatever it is this week) posts or points I've ever made on this website. I hate racists. Absolutely detest them. This far right nut job can be seen advocating a YES vote for Same Sex Marriage on this website. Ditto for Repeal the 8th. So extreme amn't I? So go on, quote my far right posts. I'll wait. Here's a spoiler, you won't be able to because I never have. You're a liar.

I honestly think you're owed an apology. I may disagree with you on this subject, but that name calling isn't on.

Will I Am Not

“Yiz are all radicalized, triggered, snowflakes using all these American buzzwords” :pac:

Keepaneye

Complains about lazy generalisations.

Calls people he doesn't agree with "alt right".

pickarooney

This is the worst thing I have ever read and yet I have continued through 13 pages.

What the **** is wrong with me?

TomSweeney

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm about as liberal as they come and, yes. She's quite blatantly a racist. I'd also add that I think she's the worst kind of attention seeker who uses social injustice to feed her own spiteful, self-centred agenda regardless of the damage it does to good causes. Basically, a human tapeworm.

I am printing this,framing it and hanging it up!

its a big day when I agree with ancapailldorcha

Omackeral

Brian? wrote: »

You don't think the idea that it was satire is enough to investigate beyond the tweets? I do. That's critical analysis. It doesn't seem very welcome though.

Would you be as quick to critically analyse all people who claim that they were only being satirical? If yes, then fair play. I'd doubt it though.

Brian? wrote: »

What's wrong with condemning the far right? Honestly I can't believe I have to ask that. I can't condemn white nationalists, the KKK or the Aryan nation without doing the same to socialists or I'm a hypocrite? That's absolute nonsense.

Yes it is nonsense because I never said that. Read it back Mr Critical Analyst. I said,

Omackeral wrote: »

if you're comfortable condemning swathes of the far right then it's fair to say the far left are game for being tarred with one brush too.

I also have said that the far right and far left are as bad as each other. Two sides of the same coin was the term I used i.e they're both bad. Therefore, there's absolutely nothing wrong with condemning the far right as I'll happily do it myself. I agreed with you before you needed to bring up the KKK or Aryan Nation.

keffiyeh

Omackeral wrote: »

If you're not with us, you're against us. Very fascist sounding.

1. You said it, not me.
2. Never heard fascists say that.

Try again?

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

Pardon me if I find it up there with believing in creationism that you would be nearly so quick to waffle on about "critical analysis" if these tweets were aimed at any other group. TBH creationism would be ahead by a nose.

Based on what? What have I done to earn this contempt exactly?

Something is either setting out to offend, rile up, or negatively point at an identifiable group of people in a prejudicial way, or it's not. It's not rocket surgery. If someone filters out certain groups because of their own worldview position, then yes, that is a bloody good example of hypocrisy. Even if the person is unaware they're doing it, which you seem to be. Hence I wouldn't call you a hypocrite as it's not deliberate, but I would still see it as hypocritical.

What do you mean by "their own world view" exactly? My world view is formed by my education, the news sources I digest and my every day experiences with people.

This world view allows me to filter such groups. That's called an educated decision. I don't know enough about Ms. Jeong to make and educated decision. That's not brain science. I want to know more. That's all I've said, repeatedly without anyone providing me with any further information.

Brian?

Keepaneye wrote: »

Complains about lazy generalisations.

Calls people he doesn't agree with "alt right".

Is that aimed at me?

Omackeral

Brian? wrote: »

Omackeral isn't a far right radical. It undercuts any serious point you may have to start name calling this way.

Thank you. I'd gladly take one of those pastries you're bringing to the SMofB meeting