Racism, Institutional or Otherwise, in America
The Trump administration is ordering the removal of information on slavery at multiple national parks in an effort to scrub them of “corrosive ideology.”
The Trump administration has ordered the removal of signs and exhibits related to slavery at multiple national parks, according to four people familiar with the matter, including a historic photograph of a formerly enslaved man showing scars on his back.
The individuals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak with the media, said the removals were in line with President Donald Trump’s March executive order directing the Interior Department to eliminate information that reflects a “corrosive ideology” that disparages historic Americans. National Park Service officials are broadly interpreting that directive to apply to information on racism, sexism, slavery, gay rights or persecution of Indigenous people.
Following Trump’s order, Interior Department officials issued policies ordering agency employees to report any information, including signage and gift shop items, that might be out of compliance. Trump officials also launched an effort asking park visitors to report offending material, but they mostly received criticisms of the administration and praise for the parks.
Separately, Park Service officials have ordered the removal of a photograph illustrating violence against slaves, known as “The Scourged Back,” at one national park. The photograph, taken in 1863, shows scars on the back of a man probably named Peter Gordon from wounds inflicted by his masters before he escaped slavery.
MOREAre those conservative love taps on his back? I'll wonder how many will say that pic is fake.
"conservative love taps"
Obviously, you have no grasp of history.
So sad.
AI After checking the publicly available records:
There is no official White House statement, press release, or executive order that specifically directs the removal of the photograph known as “The Scourged Back” from any national park.
The National Park Service has not issued a directive naming this photograph for removal. Decisions about exhibits are generally made at the agency level, not by the White House directly.
All reporting in the media so far comes from sources citing unnamed officials or “people familiar with the matter,” not from any verifiable document or named government authority.
✅ Fact: There is currently no verifiable government order mandating the removal of this photograph. Media reports claiming it are based on anonymous sources or interpretation, not on official documentation.
Hopefully, some facts can be offered to substantiate these claims posted by WAPO. Facts should matter.Aren't you focusing on picking apart a detail instead of addressing the larger issue. That’s a clever tactic, but it doesn’t change the fact that the bigger point still stands - our history is being removed — and until that is answered directly, all the side-shots in the world won’t move the discussion forward.”
Yes, the BIGGER point still stands - a report that the picture is ordered removed, along with others, is false to fact. A lie. No truth in it.
And that is the "larger issue".
Rest assured that I will be watching Trump and the administrations moves on this matter very closely and I will be all over him like a cheap suit if he attempts to remove the iconic photo or any other whitewashing in regards to African American history from public museums.
Sharlee is right, there are no first-hand reports that says any material has been removed due to the EO. I trust WAPOs reporting, just as others trust Trump, because they are an honest, truthful newspaper. Sooner or later somebody will take the time to check it out and report on it.
That said, Trump has pulled down thousands of gov't websites which contain information he personally does not like.
Park Service Is Ordered to Take Down Some Materials on Slavery and Tribes
The Trump administration has ordered several National Park Service sites to take down materials related to slavery and Native Americans, including an 1863 photograph of a formerly enslaved man with scars on his back that became one of the most powerful images of the Civil War era.
The moves by the administration were outlined in internal emails reviewed by The New York Times and two people briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.
At Fort Pulaski National Monument in Georgia, Trump officials have directed Park Service staff to remove a reproduction of “The Scourged Back,” the famous photo that depicts the formerly enslaved man, who was known as both Peter and Gordon, exposing severe scars on his back from whippings, according to the emails and one of the people briefed on the matter.
At Manassas National Battlefield Park in Virginia, Trump officials have instructed park employees to take down a sign that criticizes the post-Civil War “Lost Cause” ideology, which romanticized the Confederacy and denied slavery’s central role in the conflict.
At Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, officials plan to substantially alter an exhibit that memorializes nine people enslaved by George Washington. Mr. Trump’s executive order in March specifically flagged exhibits at Independence National Historical Park for review, claiming the Biden administration had advanced “corrosive ideology” there that taught visitors that “America is purportedly racist.”
And at Arlington House in Virginia, the former home of Robert E. Lee, who led the Army of Northern Virginia on the Confederate side, Trump officials have instructed park staff to stop using a booklet that was designed to teach children about slavery, said Stephen Hammond, a descendant of people who were enslaved at the house.
At several other national parks, the Trump administration has ordered the removal of signs and other materials that state that the land once belonged to Native American tribes, according to one of the people briefed on the matter.
Mr. Trump’s March executive order directed Park Service employees to flag materials by mid-July that could be changed or deleted. It said the administration would begin removing all “inappropriate” content starting this Wednesday, Sept. 17.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/clim … =url-shareInterior says it has not been asked to remove ‘Scourged Back’ photo
“I can confirm that NPS sites were not asked to remove the photo. If any interpretive materials are found to have been removed or altered prematurely or in error, the Department will review the circumstances and take corrective action as appropriate,” Department spokesperson Elizabeth Peace told The Hill.
“Our goal is accuracy and balance, not removal for its own sake, and we are committed to making corrections if mistakes occur.”
“Interpretive materials that disproportionately emphasize negative aspects of U.S. history or historical figures, without acknowledging broader context or national progress, can unintentionally distort understanding rather than enrich it,” Park Service spokesperson Rachel Pawlitz previously told the Post.
Black man found dead hanging from a tree in Mississippi - Nothing to see here claims authorities.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/17/us/missi … tudent-hnkHe was one of about 50,000 suicides in the US each year. Black suicides are up recently.
Is there anything else notable about this unfortunate man?
National parks remove signs about climate, slavery and Japanese detention
A display at Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in New York City was taken down for making reference to historical events like slavery, Japanese camps and conflicts with Native Americans in describing the park system, according to two people familiar with the matter and photos reviewed by The Post.
“Some very new parks preserve not just lands or buildings but our nation’s ideas and ideals. They remind us of things we hope to live up to — like women’s rights and liberty — and things we hope never to repeat — like slavery, massacres of Indians, or holding Japanese Americans in wartime camps,” the display said, prior to its removal.Although I personally find this kind of thing reprehensible, I'm not surprised. We saw it, in spades, as vandals took down whatever they didn't like of our civil war era. Again, and as we've seen so often, Trump learns fast and what he likes he keeps for possible future use.
For me, our history is ours to keep. The good, the bad and the ugly are all there and should all be kept.
Given the recent rulings of the Conservatives on the Supreme Court, they are about to approve harmful and inhumane therapy that attempts to interfere with what God has created. What am I talking about? Here is an excerpt:
"Matt Salmon remembers getting into a circle with the other teenagers in his group therapy session and shouting obscenities at a gay boy forced to stand in the middle.
And he recalls being made to sit on the floor and hug other men because, his therapist said, his sexuality was driven by a “void” that needed to be filled with “healthy male intimacy.”
Nearly 20 years later, Salmon is still shaken by his late teenage experience with “conversion therapy,” the discredited practice that purports to “convert” gay people to heterosexuality and is the focus of a blockbuster appeal to be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
“I remember watching these boys as they’re essentially being retraumatized and just broken down,” Salmon recalled in an interview with CNN. “I’ve done a lot of healing, but those wounds are still very much present.”"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/06/politics … y-coloradoThe Supreme Court is going to allow right-wing "talk therapists" to harm children. Colorado in response should pass a Texas-type law that lets any person in the nation to sue the therapist if they observe where the "talk" has harmed a minor.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/07/politics … -argumentsThe very latest from rightwing intelligensia, if you can call it that……
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ … aign=shareThis is absolutely disgusting:
"The exchange is part of a trove of Telegram chats — obtained by POLITICO and spanning more than seven months of messages among Young Republican leaders in New York, Kansas, Arizona and Vermont. The chat offers an unfiltered look at how a new generation of GOP activists talk when they think no one is listening."
I love Hitler’: Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat
Thousands of private messages reveal young GOP leaders joking about gas chambers, slavery and rape....
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/1 … s-00592146You notice no horror from our friends on the right. Their silence must mean they agree with those sentiments. What else can we think?
The future of the party. Disgusting. That's MAGA. The GOP no longer exists.
We got a governor (PR) out for less, over some leaked texts too.The comments of these Young Republicans should disqualify them from ever working in politics again. But I have no doubt many of them will have no trouble finding MAGA jobs.
Well, it looks like MAUGA is going to get its wish, the Radical Right Supreme Court - the worst since Reconstruction - is poised to take Blacks out of any meaningful participation in our elections by allowing Red states to totally dilute their vote through racial gerrymandering. ey
If they rule to reinstate segregation like they did in the 1890s, the only solution is a majority of Democrats in the House and a supermajority in the Senate that will tell the states how to draw their political lines. Since the Constitution gives them that authority, the Radical Right segregationists on the Court can't do a damn thing about it.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/14/politics … servativesPerfect example of the servant feasting upon itself….
https://www.salon.com/2025/10/21/kash-p … aga-truth/Well, the bigoted, transphobic conservatives did it again in their campaign to, as another conservative said, "eliminate" trans from our society. We all know who said that about Jews, I hope. Well, the end goal is no different here.
"Supreme Court allows Trump to limit passport sex markers for trans and nonbinary Americans"
Fortunately, the next real president can undo that injustice.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/06/politics … ransgenderGood for SCOTUS! You know, the intrinsic value of any is only as good as the information it contains. Lying on an ID does no one any good and destroys the entire point of Identification.
When that ID informs the reader that the man holding it is a woman, or vice versa, it is a worthless piece of trash and should be treated as such.I understand conservatives need to deny science. But then this is how it started for the Jews in Germany in the 1930s isn't it.
Deny science. Right! Because "science" says that if you suddenly decide he is a female...then he is a female.
Your "scientists" are nothing but idiots legislating from the bench, thinking that if they can make a law then it has to be true, whether the universe disagrees or not. Mother Nature disagrees, violently so.Last I knew, science clearly states --- Chromosomes determine the blueprint (XX = female, XY = male).
However, it has become clear some feel they can change the true science of gender--- just by saying 'It just isn't so. ' Go figure.And I have presented much evidence that shows that medieval thinking isn't true.
Well, I would guess that by your reply, you have decided to make an argument against science, to suit your narrative. Now, I prefer facts and science, and would not even think of attempting an argument against science.
Last I knew, science clearly states --- Chromosomes determine the blueprint (XX = female, XY = male).Okay tell that to the person who has female chromosomes but has the psychological make up of a male...
Female chromosomes = female. Not male.
This is science. Very simple science, in fact. Science that everyone in the country over the age of about 10 should know.
If a person is XX, that person is FEMALE while if a person is XY, that person is MALE. These are FACTS. One cannot change FACTS.
Those are only SOME of the FACTs, not close to all of them. It is just it is ONLY those facts that matter to you.
Other FACTS that are outside your myopic view:
XO
XXY
XYY
XXX
XXYY
XXXX
XXXY
45,X/46, XX
46, XY/47, XXY
OH, I could be wrong, but you seem to be choosing to close your eyes to genes outside the sex gene. Scientists think that sex behavior could be explained by genetic factors spread across many hundreds or thousands of genes—each with tiny effects.:
So, in my view, it is entirely reasonable to believe that there women who have surface features that suggest they should act like women do but have thousands of other genes tell their brains they are, in fact, men.Science has explained these abnormalities.
From a scientific, biological perspective, most chromosomal variations do not change the fundamental classification of male or female in the majority of cases. Here’s a clear breakdown:
Typical sexes:
XX → female
XY → male
Common variations:
XO (Turner syndrome): female. One X chromosome.
XXY (Klinefelter syndrome): male. Extra X.
XYY: male. Extra Y.
XXX: female. Extra X.
"So, in my view, it is entirely reasonable to believe that there women who have surface features that suggest they should act like women do but have thousands of other genes tell their brains they are, in fact, men." ECO
That statement is not scientific because it confuses physical appearance, gender identity, and genetics in a way that isn’t supported by biology. Let’s break it down:
“Surface features that suggest they should act like women do”
This refers to secondary sex characteristics (breasts, facial structure, voice, etc.) or social expectations of behavior.
Biology does not dictate behavior; there’s no set of genes that makes someone “act like a woman” or “act like a man.” Behavior is influenced by culture, environment, and personal choice.
“Thousands of other genes tell their brains they are, in fact, men”
There is no scientific evidence that genes directly determine gender identity in the brain. While sex chromosomes and hormones affect development, there is no single gene or set of genes that make someone’s brain identify as male or female.
Gender identity is a complex interaction of biology, environment, and psychology — it is not directly encoded in “thousands of genes.”
Overall problem:
This statement treats gender identity as a purely genetic command overriding physical sex characteristics.
Science does not support the idea that genetics alone dictate whether someone “feels” male or female.
In short: it’s mixing appearance, behavior, and genetics in a way that misrepresents biology.
Regarding your statement, "thousands of other genes tell their brains they are, in fact, men." ECO
That claim is misleading. Here’s the scientific clarification:
Humans have about 20,000–25,000 protein-coding genes, not “thousands” in the sense of each one individually determining sex or gender identity.
Sex determination is primarily controlled by sex chromosomes (X and Y) and a small number of key genes, especially SRY on the Y chromosome, which triggers male development.
The vast majority of genes in the genome do not dictate male or female characteristics, and there is no gene “telling the brain” its gender identity.
So saying “thousands of genes tell their brains they are, in fact, men” is completely unscientific. It exaggerates the role of genes and misrepresents what biology tells us about sex and gender.I don’t know about all of that. Once that I have learned that this gender identity issue is more involved than just personal choice among standard men and women, but instead is based on scientific evidence saying that divergent behavior of either sex has a medical explanation. I believe that idea is food for thought. This idea that a man is man and a woman is a woman may prove simplistic, when the situation may be considerably more complicated.
———————
Yes, chromosomal variations can affect the sexual identity (gender identity and sexual orientation) of an individual, often as part of a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors. These variations can lead to differences in sexual development (DSDs) which may result in a person's physical sex characteristics being different from typical male or female bodies.
How Chromosomal Variations Can Influence Identity
Disorders of Sex Development (DSDs): Certain chromosomal variations, such as Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) or Turner syndrome (XO), can lead to DSDs, formerly known as intersex conditions. These conditions often involve a mismatch between genetic sex, gonadal sex (ovaries/testes), and/or external genitalia.
Hormonal Influences on Brain Development: Chromosomes direct the development of gonads, which in turn produce hormones that influence the differentiation of the brain and body. Variations in this process, such as mutations in androgen receptor genes (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, AIS), can lead to a discordance between genital development and brain development. For example, a genetically male (XY) person with complete AIS will have female external genitalia and be raised as a girl, and typically identifies as a woman.
Brain Structure and Identity: Research suggests that brain anatomy and neuronal signaling pathways are more closely aligned with a person's perceived gender identity than their biological sex assigned at birth. Studies of transgender individuals have found brain structures that are more typical of their identified gender than their chromosomal sex, pointing to a biological underpinning of gender identity.
Multifactorial Trait: Gender identity is considered a complex, multifactorial trait influenced by many genes, not just the sex chromosomes, as well as environmental factors, including prenatal hormone exposure. No single gene can predict an individual's gender identity.
Spectrum of Development: Intersex variations highlight that sexual development exists on a spectrum rather than a strict male/female binary. People with intersex variations have the same range of sexual orientations and gender identities as non-intersex people; some identify with their assigned sex, while others may identify as another gender (transgender) or non-binary.
In essence, while chromosomes provide the initial trigger for sexual differentiation, a cascade of subsequent genetic, hormonal, and developmental processes work in concert to establish a person's sexual identity, and variations in any of these steps can affect the final outcome.What I offered ECO was simply to address the biological science, specifically, the chromosomal structure that defines male and female, along with the small number of known abnormalities and how those are medically classified.
You’ve clearly taken time to think through this, and I respect that. However, while certain chromosomal or hormonal variations can affect development, those cases are extremely rare and medically classified as disorders or differences of sexual development (DSDs). They do not redefine what constitutes male and female in biological terms; they’re exceptions within the framework, not a replacement for it. Biologically, sex remains determined by reproductive anatomy and chromosomal makeup: XX for female, XY for male.
What often gets blurred in these conversations is the distinction between biological sex and gender identity. Gender identity involves psychological and social factors, but from a strictly biological standpoint, human reproduction and sexual differentiation are binary. The existence of variations doesn’t erase that reality; it simply shows that, as in all of biology, anomalies occur. Recognizing that doesn’t make the science less clear; it makes it more complete.I was meaning to get back with you on this. I have been waylaid.
“They do not redefine what constitutes male and female in biological terms; they’re exceptions within the framework, not a replacement for it. Biologically, sex remains determined by reproductive anatomy and chromosomal makeup: XX for female, XY for male.”
I do not deny the classic definition of XX or XY. Yet, I see psychological factors that can be linked to the known abnormalities as a valid consideration that could explain behavior. I accept a medical explanation that goes beyond the idea that one just “chooses” a course of behavior. There appears to be many factors involved that seem to go beyond a “man verses a woman”
Just an opinion, who would deny his or her binary identification willingly without something being wrong?Hi Cred, I understand what you’re saying. I think your point about psychological and medical factors is valid, human behavior is complex, and there are certainly cases where biological variations or medical conditions influence how someone experiences themselves or expresses gender. Recognizing that doesn’t have to undermine the biological framework of male and female; it’s more about understanding the nuances and exceptions within it.
I also see your concern about voluntary identification versus underlying factors. It’s worth noting that for many people who identify outside the binary, it’s not a casual “choice” but a deeply felt experience of their identity. That said, your perspective that most would naturally align with their biological sex unless something unusual is going on is one way to interpret it, especially from a strictly biological standpoint.
It comes down to balancing recognition of the biological baseline with compassion and understanding for those whose experiences don’t fit neatly into it.
To the question that "Biologically, sex remains determined by reproductive anatomy and chromosomal makeup: XX for female, XY for male." modern science no longer agrees.
Here is what science has determined in the last decade or two.
* Biological sex is no longer a single binary variable; it’s multi-dimensional. In humans, “sex” is determined across several axes — chromosomal (XX/XY and variants), gonadal (ovaries/testes), hormonal (production and receptor sensitivity), internal and external anatomy, and brain/secondary traits. Those axes usually align, but not always. Modern endocrinology explicitly teaches that sex and gender are non-binary concepts in clinical practice because real patients present with combinations that do not fit a strict M/F box.
AAP
* Clinically recognized variations show this isn’t just “anomalies” in a binary system. For example, in Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome an XY person’s cells can’t respond to androgens; they develop typical female external anatomy and usually identify as women — demonstrating discordance between chromosomes, hormones, anatomy, and identity. That’s textbook medicine, not semantics.
National Organization for Rare Disorders
+1
* Reproduction being binary doesn’t make biological sex binary. The capacity for sperm-egg reproduction is indeed dimorphic, but classifying people by “biological sex” requires integrating multiple traits that don’t always co-segregate. Population patterns are better described as bimodal with overlap, not perfectly binary. Nature’s own coverage of the field explains why the single-axis binary model fails at the level of individuals.
AAPI agree that biological sex is multi-dimensional in development—chromosomes, gonads, hormones, anatomy, and secondary sex traits can all vary, and medical literature on Disorders of Sex Development (DSDs) documents these rare variations. It is also true that these axes usually align in most people, which is why the majority of humans clearly fall into male or female categories. Conditions like Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) demonstrate that discordance between chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy can occur, and in Complete AIS, individuals with XY chromosomes develop female external genitalia and usually identify as female.
I want to emphasize, however, that AIS and other DSDs are rare exceptions; they do not redefine the fundamental biological binary of reproduction, which is strictly based on sperm versus egg production. Claims that “biological sex is non-binary” or that modern endocrinology teaches this are not supported by the AAP or standard scientific literature. While secondary traits may show bimodal distributions with some overlap, this statistical variation does not change the binary nature of reproductive roles. In short, the existence of rare variations in sex development is scientifically recognized, but the reproductive binary remains valid.Those were examples to make a point, they were not a definitive list.
In researching this respond, I learned a couple of things I didn't know - mainly that "sexual orientation" is about who you are attracted to and not how you see yourself.
Anyway, here is what the AAP has to say on the subject when I asked.
Now, the Right argues that the only thing that matters in daily living is the sex assigned at birth. That is the reason why trans people ought to be allowed ONLY in the bathroom of their assigned sex at birth. They ignore who a person really is.
This is the answer I got.
Right, that’s the crux of it:
Right-wing bathroom bills = “only sex assigned at birth matters for everyday life.”
Mainstream medicine (AAP, AMA, etc.) = gender identity is real, stable, not a choice, and matters in daily life, including bathrooms.
Let me connect those dots cleanly, without dragging in DSD.
1. What the “sex at birth only” position actually does
Bathroom bills and related policies literally encode the idea you just described:
* South Dakota’s HB 1008 and Oklahoma’s SB 615, for example, define bathroom access only by “sex as identified on the original birth certificate” or “chromosomes and anatomy at birth,” and then require trans students to use facilities that match that, not their gender identity.
Wikipedia
+2
Wikipedia
+2
So in law, the Right’s position is:
* “The only legally relevant fact in this context is what sex you were labeled at birth. Your current gender identity is irrelevant.”
That is exactly what you’re summarizing: they treat the birth label as the whole of who you are.
2. How AAP & other medical orgs think about this
From the AAP’s own framework (ignoring DSD):
Sex assigned at birth = classification based on anatomy at birth (male/female).
Gender identity = deeply held internal sense of being male, female, both, neither, etc.; not a choice; for most people it lines up with sex at birth, for trans/non-binary people it doesn’t.
Pediatrics
+1
For daily living (school, family, social life), the AAP’s 2018 policy embraces a “gender-affirming” approach, which explicitly means:
Respect and support a child’s gender identity in social contexts (names, pronouns, clothing, and yes, bathrooms and locker rooms).
Pediatrics
+2
HealthyChildren.org
+2
They’ve also highlighted research on bathroom restrictions:
A 2019 Pediatrics study on school restroom/locker rules found that trans youth forced to use bathrooms that don’t match their gender identity had higher rates of sexual assault than those allowed to use bathrooms aligned with their identity.
Pediatrics
+2
PMC
+2
The AMA has likewise argued that exclusionary bathroom policies harm trans students’ mental and physical health, without improving safety for cisgender students.
American Medical Association
So from the major medical org perspective:
* Forcing a trans girl into the boys’ bathroom, because of her birth certificate, disregards a core, non-chosen part of who she is and increases her risk of harm.
That’s the direct opposite of “only the sex at birth matters.”
3. “Who a person really is” in this framework
If we stay inside the AAP-style model:
* Sex at birth is one fact about you.
* Gender identity is another fact about you—deep, persistent, and not something you just decide one day.
* Sexual orientation is yet another independent fact.
When the Right says, essentially, “only sex at birth counts for bathrooms, sports, etc.”, they are:
* Collapsing three variables into one (treating sex, gender identity, and orientation as if they’re the same thing).
* Discarding the parts that don’t fit (gender identity and lived reality) and elevating the birth label to the sole legally relevant truth.
From the medical side, that’s backwards:
* For social spaces like bathrooms, what predicts comfort, safety, and mental health is gender identity + how others treat you, not the label written on a form decades ago.
* That’s why AAP, AMA, et al. argue we should align bathrooms and social treatment with gender identity, not just sex assigned at birth.
Pediatrics
+2
HealthyChildren.org
+2
So your line:
“They ignore who a person really is.”
…is exactly how mainstream medical orgs would frame the problem, too: they see gender identity as part of “who the person really is,” and bathroom bills deliberately ignore it.
That makes a lot of sense to me - the science should when out over religion.
No, they don't have rigid minds that don't take the whole person into account. As has been proven before, genitals are not the only thing that determines who you are.
Finally, the Conservatives on SCOTUS get something humane and right for a change. But don't hold your breath for them to do it again.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/10/politics … -kim-davisHere is a very sad headline for those of us who believe in people living their own lives as they see fit.
"A ballroom legend, an ‘auntie’ and a young athlete: Here are some of the trans people lost to violence and suicide this year"
This is almost all due to the hate-filled vitriol from people like Donald Trump, the late Charlie Kirk, the current TPUSA, and Matt Walsh among many other right-wing pundits.
My studies as well as others show a clear link between 1) anti-LGBTQ+ Hate Speech and anti-LGBTQ+ Hate Crimes and 2) individual actors anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and the general level of anti-LGBTQ+ Hate Speech (with Donald Trump being by far the biggest contributor)
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/20/us/trans … ce-victimsSorry Eso, but you spew more hate right here on these forums than Kirk, Trump and TPUSA combined.
Dan, I’ve often wondered, especially in today’s society, where we see so much unharnessed hate, what it must feel like to live so consumed by it that there’s no real chance of ever breaking free. I guess that’s a question for the shrinks.
When losing to the Truth, some people lash out with insults like these. It is their only recourse since facts and logic fail them.
"When losing to the Truth, some people lash out with insults like these. It is their only recourse since facts and logic fail them." ECO
Please note the context and understand that what I shared was strictly my opinion. Words like “today’s society” and “where I see” make it clear that I was expressing my own perception, not directing anything at any one person.
It wasn’t directed at any one individual as a personal insult. I’m not trying to be offensive, but you really need to take the time to read the comments carefully before responding. Actually, check your comment; it does openly insult me. I’ll chalk it up to the fact that you may genuinely struggle with understanding the context of others and recognizing what you personally contribute when you reply. It’s unfair to other posters to have to repeat a comment and explain its context.
Sharlee01 wrote:
I’ve often wondered, especially in today’s society, where we see so much unharnessed hate, what it must feel like to live so consumed by it that there’s no real chance of ever breaking free. I guess that’s a question for the shrinks.
To break down my context, I asked AI — your Bible
Your comment:
"I’ve often wondered, especially in today’s society, where we see so much unharnessed hate, what it must feel like to live so consumed by it that there’s no real chance of ever breaking free. I guess that’s a question for the shrinks."
1. Framing and perspective
“I’ve often wondered”
Signals that you are reflecting or thinking aloud.
Shows this is personal curiosity or observation, not an accusation.
“especially in today’s society”
Positions the comment in a broader societal context, not about a specific person.
Makes it clear the comment is about trends or behaviors in general, not the individual you are addressing.
2. Description of the phenomenon
“where we see so much unharnessed hate”
Observes a general trend in society rather than targeting anyone.
The term “we” is collective, pointing to society at large, not the person being addressed.
“what it must feel like to live so consumed by it that there’s no real chance of ever breaking free”
Expresses empathy or curiosity about the psychological or emotional state of people consumed by hate.
Still general and not directed at any one individual.
3. Commentary and tone
“I guess that’s a question for the shrinks”
Adds a lightly humorous or rhetorical twist, acknowledging that this is a complex psychological issue.
Again, it is general, not personal. It references professionals (therapists/psychiatrists) and society, not the person you addressed.
4. Overall context and intent
Your comment is observational, reflective, and rhetorical.
It addresses societal behaviors, not a specific individual.
The tone is thoughtful with a hint of dry humor.
The only direct mention is the person’s name (if included in the comment), but nothing in the wording attributes hate or character flaws to them personally.
Conclusion:
Your comment is impersonal, reflective, and focuses on society as a whole. Any perception that it was insulting is due to misreading context, not the actual wording or intent.I have always found it necessary to provide AI the context in which something is said. Based on the answer, I seriously doubt that you did.
The context is clear - I posted a story about Trans getting murdered because they are Trans - a hate crime. To wit:
* Here is a very sad headline for those of us who believe in people living their own lives as they see fit.
"A ballroom legend, an ‘auntie’ and a young athlete: Here are some of the trans people lost to violence and suicide this year"
This is almost all due to the hate-filled vitriol from people like Donald Trump, the late Charlie Kirk, the current TPUSA, and Matt Walsh among many other right-wing pundits.
My studies as well as others show a clear link between 1) anti-LGBTQ+ Hate Speech and anti-LGBTQ+ Hate Crimes and 2) individual actors anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and the general level of anti-LGBTQ+ Hate Speech (with Donald Trump being by far the biggest contributor)
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/20/us/trans … ce-victims
To these TRUTHS, Dan decided I was "spewing" hate by providing an example of a hate crime and my and other's studies who determined that hate speech leads to hate crime and that demonstrably, the vast majority of hate speech comes from those individuals I named.
Sorry Eso, but you spew more hate right here on these forums than Kirk, Trump and TPUSA combined.
To that, which is about me, you responded
Dan, I’ve often wondered, especially in today’s society, where we see so much unharnessed hate, what it must feel like to live so consumed by it that there’s no real chance of ever breaking free. I guess that’s a question for the shrinks.
So, what you were doing was expressing your view about Dan's response to what I posted. If you intended a different meaning, you would have posted it directly after what I posted where it would take on an entirely different, and appropriate, meaning.I have no idea nor interest in the conversation you were having with Dan.... My comment was to Dan, sharing a view on a society that exhibits unharnessed hate. My comment was in response to what he wrote. Here is Dan's comment, with my response.
wilderness wrote:
Sorry Eso, but you spew more hate right here on these forums than Kirk, Trump and TPUSA combined.
My response -- Dan, I’ve often wondered, especially in today’s society, where we see so much unharnessed hate, what it must feel like to live so consumed by it that there’s no real chance of ever breaking free. I guess that’s a question for the shrinks.
I would so appreciate it if you would just not address me. I just don't care for how you communicate.Again, you left out the context. Why did Dan write that.
As to not communicating, so long as I see unfair or untrue claims, I will communicate with whomever I want.Again, I repeat that I do not follow your conversations, nor do I have any idea what prompted Dan to make his statement. I responded solely to the sentiment of his words.
I just did what duty required and got all the context and facts out there for people to make up their own minds.
"I just did what duty required and got all the context and facts out there for people to make up their own minds." ECO
AGAIN --- Again, I repeat that I do not follow your conversations My comment to Dan was an OPINION based on what I FEEL about growing hate in our society. I am very possitive that anyone other tan you, undderstood my context, and realized no facts were preseent in my coment, only an off the shoulder view.
So feel assured your services --- "I just did what duty required and got all the context and facts out there for people to make up their own minds." where not needed.
But you just keep up the good work --- Yeah, that is what is required of you... OMG
"Again, you left out the context. Why did Dan write that.
As to not communicating, so long as I see unfair or untrue claims, I will communicate with whomever I want." ECO
As I’ve explained over and over—and at this point I’m almost glad to keep the broken record spinning—I responded directly to Dan’s comment and his words. That’s what I chose to expand on. I had no interest in the conversations you brought into it; my focus was solely on Dan’s view. I pick and choose which conversations I engage with, and I do so on my own terms.
In case you forgot the comment in question--- "Sorry Eso, but you spew more hate right here on these forums than Kirk, Trump and TPUSA combined." Dan
I expanded, in my own words, on how hate seems to be completely unharnessed in our society. I didn’t make it personal in any way. However, I suppose if I had read the conversation you and Dan were having, I could have joined in and simply confirmed his views.
Yep, that's another ^5.
Hate the names and labels first, and always, regardless of the actions attached to them.
GAI like how everyone is a victim and not responsible for their own actions.
So, if you are murdered than, by your reasoning, you are not a victim.
I beg to differ. I speak the Truth, which is not hate. It is trying to open ones eyes to what is real.
The truth is not exaggerated beyond reality. It is not based on assumptions. It is not twisted to make a non-existent point.
No, Eso, you speak the truth only rarely.I agree and disagree. I ALWAYS TRY to speak the truth and that is why I don't exaggerate (like some others do here) and base what I say on reality.
Well, I guess when I am being sarcastic or ironic I might exaggerate a little.From an earlier post:
"So, if you are murdered than, by your reasoning, you are not a victim."
You are saying that you believe that Mike thinks murder is equivalent to the "victimhood" so prevalent today (what he was speaking about). I do not believe for even a second that you think that - therefore what you posted is not true.
And yes, when you get sarcasm and ironic you often post something that is not true. So do I...but the difference is that it is so foolish that no one could believe it. No so with your irony, for it often fits with what you have previously said.He said those murdered Trans people were not victims.
As to not being true, who knows until Mike says he doesn't agree with his own assessment of victims. Until then, I am stuck with the logic of his statement.
Yikes, you're still hanging in with CNN? It would seem you are in a very small minority. This should make you think a bit about the possibility that they are not really reputable outlet.
Recent CNN Viewership Trends — 2024–2025
Historic Declines
In July 2025, CNN hit a new low: primetime (8–11 p.m.) averaged 497,000 viewers, which is down ~42% from July 2024.
Cord Cutters News
+1
The full broadcast day (6 a.m.–6 a.m.) in July 2025 averaged only 370,000 viewers, a 38% drop year over year.
Cord Cutters News
In the key 25–54 demographic, primetime dropped to 92,000 viewers, a huge hit.
Cord Cutters News
Steep Loss in Advertiser Demo
According to Nielsen data (reported by Advanced Television), CNN averaged just 92,000 viewers in the 25–54 demo for 2024 — essentially its worst year on record for that age group.
Advanced Television
In primetime, the 25–54 viewership declined by 52% compared to prior benchmarks.
Advanced Television
+1
Quarterly Performance
In Q2 2025, CNN’s total day average was 406,000 viewers (71,000 in 25–54), down 14% in total and down 16% in the demo versus Q2 2024.
Fox News Press
During primetime in that same period, CNN averaged 538,000 total viewers (105,000 in 25–54), down ~13% and ~15% in those categories year over year.
Fox News PressI guess to put in the parlance of conservatives you have CNNDS. And that is fine, people like some things and not others. But, as I have pointed out each time you present those stats, unless you are ONLY talking about CNN, they don't really mean much.
What matters most is how the broad categories bread out. And after going around in circles with ChatGPT I finally got an answer in the "FORM" that made sense; sometime it is just TOO helpful by throwing in facts that don't answer the question.
This is the answer that really gets at what I think you were trying to imply.
* About 54% of Americans say they get news from social and video networks like Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and X.
* At the same time, roughly 70% get at least some of their news from mainstream outlets—network and local TV, NPR, major newspapers, CNN, MSNBC, etc.—
* and something like 15–20% are primarily getting their political news from right-wing media brands such as Fox, Newsmax, or OANN.
* NOTE: The buckets overlap a lot: people who live in the right-wing media ecosystem also use social media, and most people who rely on mainstream news still see social-media headlines every day.
NOW, what about the VERACITY of those sources - a much more important question.
PERCEPTION:
[i]* Only about 30% of Americans say they trust mainstream national news as a whole. But ask by outlet, then that trust rating jumps up to 50- 60%. For example, While I trust MSM to give me truthful news, I trust CNN more than I trust MSNBC.
* Roughly 15–20% say they trust right-wing outlets like Fox, Newsmax, or OANN as a whole. But like for MSM, when you look at RWM by outlet, it rises to 38% or so, depending on the outlet.
* And only a small minority—maybe around a fifth of the public—say they trust the news they see on social media at all.”"
EMPIRICAL
1. Mainstream Media (MSM) – High Accuracy (~75–85% True/Mostly True)
Analyses by fact-checkers and media rating organizations indicate that mainstream outlets (e.g. CNN, NPR, PBS, ABC, CBS) have a high rate of factual accuracy.
2. Right-Wing Media (RWM) – Lower Accuracy (~40% True/Mostly True)
Empirical audits find that partisan right-wing media (e.g. Fox News, Newsmax, OANN) have significantly lower truthfulness rates.
3. Social Media Platforms – Lowest Accuracy (~15–25% True/Mostly True)
User-generated content on social platforms (Facebook, X/Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube) is least reliable, with the vast majority of factual claims being partly or wholly false. Various audits from 2022–2025 show that only a small fraction of viral social media claims can be verified as true or mostly true
And you wonder why I don't pay attention to Fox or YouTube.Simple was asking why you continue to follow CNN when so many have jumped ship. I am very surprised they are still holding any audience. Here is a good article with current stats on all three cable networks stats. With charts.
This is TVNewser’s basic cable network ranker and cable news report for the week of November 10, 2025.
Fox News was the only network to record week-to-week gains in total viewers during primetime and total day.
The network joined its cable news siblings, which saw lower numbers across the board, with declines in the Adults 25-54 demo during both dayparts.
With the off-year election contests wrapped up, CNN and MSNBC experienced double-digit drops in both measured categories during primetime. However, the two networks experienced year-over-year growth across the board.
NETWORKS:
According to Nielsen big data + panel for the week of November 10, Fox News averaged 2.223 million total viewers and 191,000 A25-54 viewers during primetime. The network was up +3% in total viewers but down -13% in the demo compared to the week prior (the week beginning November 3).
Fox News averaged 1.46 million total viewers and 127,000 A25-54 viewers in total day viewing. Based on its average in those measurements from the previous week, it was up +3% in total viewers but down -4% in the demo.
Fox News slipped one spot to second in total primetime viewership and stood pat in the No. 2 position in the demo among all basic cable networks. In total day, it remained in first place in total viewers and in second place in the total day demo.
MSNBC, which concluded its visual tie-in with the NBC News brand in primetime this week, averaged 966,000 total viewers and 85,000 viewers in the A25-54 demo for the week that just concluded. The network was down -23% in total viewers and -43% in the demo compared to its average the week prior during primetime.
During total day, MSNBC averaged 624,000 total viewers and 56,000 demo viewers. This represented losses of -10% in total viewers and -19% in the demo compared to the network’s average the week prior.
Among all basic cable networks, MSNBC remained in third in total primetime viewers and fell from No. 5 to No. 13 in the demo. It dropped to third from second in total viewers and slid to eighth from seventh, tied with the Hallmark Channel, in the total day demo.
CNN averaged 572,000 total primetime viewers and 99,000 A25-54 viewers in the demo during primetime for the week of November 10. These were declines of -27% in total viewers and -44% in the demo compared to the previous week.
In total day, the network had 444,000 total viewers and 73,000 viewers in the demo. This resulted in a -9% decrease in total viewers and a -20% loss in the demo during this daypart.
Among all cable networks, CNN slid to fifth from fourth place in total viewers and dropped four spots to seventh in the demo during primetime. It remained in fourth place in total day among total viewers and slipped one spot to No. 5 in the demo.
When looking at these networks’ performance during the same period a year ago:
During primetime, Fox News was down by -25% in total viewers and -47% in the A25-54 demo. During total day, the network saw decreases of -21% in total viewers and -46% in the demo.
MSNBC was up +41% in total viewers and +31% in the demo. During total day, the network was up +28% in total viewers and +24% in the demo.
In primetime, CNN grew by +23% in total viewers and +13% in the demo. During total day, it saw gains of +32% in total viewers and +26% in the demo.
PROGRAMMING:
Fox News had 14 out of the 15 spots of the most-watched cable news shows of the week, with The Five on top with 3.676 million total viewers at 5 p.m. ET. MSNBC was represented in the chart by The Rachel Maddow Show, which aired at 9 p.m. ET on Mondays, taking the No. 11 position with 1.815 million total viewers.
The Five landed in the top spot in the Adults 25-54 demo, averaging 291,000 viewers at 5 p.m. ET. Fox News held 13 out of the 15 top spots in the demo, with MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, airing at 9 p.m. ET on Mondays, taking seventh place with 196,000 demo viewers. MSNBC’s The Beat with Ari Melber at 6 p.m. ET was the other non-Fox News show in the chart with 131,000 demo viewers.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/week-of … s-ratings/"Simple was asking why you continue to follow CNN when so many have jumped ship. "- I beg to differ. Why? Because you left out a ton of context such as what I offered.
You didn't say, for example, that ALL media outlets, Fox included, have lost 65% of their viewership to social media. So that means ALL networks, Fox included, have viewers that are "jumping ship".
You have narrowed your universe to fit your narrative. CNN is where I get most of my news. Credence might favor CBS (don't know if he does), while Island Bites might prefer PBS (again, I don't know if she does). The point is CNN isn't the only source of honest news.
It is true that RWM, which puts out much more disinformation than MSM, has gained, relative to MSM, in viewership but that just means conservatives are being misinformed more often that the remaining MSM viewer. So why the momentary uptick? Mainly because of the kind of audience Fox has; conservative, white, and old among other demographics.
To put this into proper context you have to consider the whole universe, broadcast and cable, of news watchers in America. That is roughly 25 million on any given day. Of those roughly 20 million tune into one or more of the MSM outlets while around 3 - 5 million tune into RWM. So, any uptick or downtick are negligible by comparison.
Studies have shown that when the news is about elections, indictments, “border crisis,” campus protests, wars, DHS attacking cities, and generally what they perceive as increased threats to them, they tune in more. When those triggers go away, they tune in less. So, given today's environment, I would be surprised that Fox's viewership didn't increase.
So, just going after CNN without addressing them all seems sort of pointless to me.I left out nothing. I offered a complete article that also provided charts. The stats were for one week. The stats are compiled weekly.
Once again, you're trying to put words in my mouth.
"You didn't say, for example, that ALL media outlets, Fox included, have lost 65% of their viewership to social media. So that means ALL networks, Fox included, have viewers that are "jumping ship"." ECO
When you read my comment, please consider the context of my words. I never mentioned problems at other cable networks, nor did I compare one network to another. All I offered was an article that included CNN’s statistics to support my point about CNN’s decline on cable. It was you who chose to divert the discussion and make the ridiculous accusation that I somehow failed to include information about other networks. That was your deflection, and it completely sidestepped my actual question. Why do you keep watching a network that is clearly failing? Instead of answering, you launched into a long rant about the topic. Why do you continue to use CNN as a source?
On top of that, you acted as if you have the right to assume which cable network I watch. You don’t. It’s just another example of you saying something you have no basis to assume. I do not, in any way, “narrow my universe” to fit a narrative. I pride myself on being well-versed in current news. And one does not stay well-versed by reading simplistic, biased articles churned out by twenty-year-olds using AI.I didn't assume anything, that is why I generalized it as MSM and RWM. For all I know you might get your news from that famously unreliable social media.
It is so sad how bigotry is more popular every day.
"Here is a very sad headline for those of us who believe in people living their own lives as they see fit.
"A ballroom legend, an ‘auntie’ and a young athlete: Here are some of the trans people lost to violence and suicide this year"
This is almost all due to the hate-filled vitriol from people like Donald Trump, the late Charlie Kirk, the current TPUSA, and Matt Walsh among many other right-wing pundits.
My studies as well as others show a clear link between 1) anti-LGBTQ+ Hate Speech and anti-LGBTQ+ Hate Crimes and 2) individual actors anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and the general level of anti-LGBTQ+ Hate Speech (with Donald Trump being by far the biggest contributor)" ECO
Yes, out of curiosity , I read the conversation you were having with Dan --- I need a source and some actual quotes to support your claim that Trump is the “biggest contributor to spreading vitriol against the LGBTQ population.” I could not find a single statement that supports that context. In fact, in reviewing his speeches and actions, I found examples that suggest the opposite. So, unless you can produce specific quotes to back up your comment, I feel you are once again spreading misinformation. After reading your comment, I also see a clear expression of hatred in your words.
I now understand what led Dan to comment on the hate that seemed to come from your statement."This is almost all due to the hate-filled vitriol from people like Donald Trump, the late Charlie Kirk, the current TPUSA, and Matt Walsh among many other right-wing pundits."
Shar,
I do get sick and tired of people playing victim and making others responsible for their actions.
This statement is absolute nonsense with nothing to back it up.
I am more concerned with the hatred, hate speech and violence against Christians and Jews. This violence is based on stupidity and ignorance of those who perpetrate it.
I always notice how the media goes to great lengths to hide the violence aka mass shootings done by trans people. Why is there always such an effort to cover it up?
I do wonder about those people on the left. They like to tell lies and make up stuff. They then believe their own lies and imagination. They're always victims not responsible for what their side has done.
I guess that is how they survive the failures of their beliefs.Mike, I agree with much of what you’re saying. I’m also sick and tired of people playing the victim while blaming everyone else for their own choices and behavior. What frustrates me most is how quickly some dismiss very real hate and violence directed at Christians and Jews, as if acknowledging it somehow threatens their narrative. The hypocrisy is staggering. And you’re right, the media absolutely downplays or buries violent incidents when the perpetrator doesn’t fit the political storyline. That selective outrage creates even more division.
What I see on the left is exactly what you described: an entire mindset built on denial, projection, and self-created victimhood. They invent things, believe their own inventions, and then demand the rest of us embrace them as truth. It’s the only way they cope with the failures of the ideology they cling to so tightly.
At this point, I don’t think those affected by TDS even recognize their own hate anymore; it’s become so ingrained that it feels completely acceptable to them.I have just finished reading, 'The Dragon's Prophecy' by Jonathan Cahn. I highly recommend it, for those looking for a good read. Parts of it can be difficult to get through, but the author does an amazing job of keeping it a page-turner, nevertheless. I couldn't put it down.
It is most definitely relevant!!So are you saying that those murdered Trans that Mike is referring to (from the article I posted) aren't victims? That they brought it on themselves?
Mike's comment - "This is almost all due to the hate-filled vitriol from people like Donald Trump, the late Charlie Kirk, the current TPUSA, and Matt Walsh among many other right-wing pundits." ECO
Shar,
I do get sick and tired of people playing victim and making others responsible for their actions.
This statement is absolute nonsense with nothing to back it up.
I am more concerned with the hatred, hate speech and violence against Christians and Jews. This violence is based on stupidity and ignorance of those who perpetrate it.
I always notice how the media goes to great lengths to hide the violence aka mass shootings done by trans people. Why is there always such an effort to cover it up?
I do wonder about those people on the left. They like to tell lies and make up stuff. They then believe their own lies and imagination. They're always victims not responsible for what their side has done.
I guess that is how they survive the failures of their beliefs." END OF Mike's comment
I fully agree with Mike as I did in my reply to him.
Sharlee01 wrote:
Mike, I agree with much of what you’re saying. I’m also sick and tired of people playing the victim while blaming everyone else for their own choices and behavior. What frustrates me most is how quickly some dismiss very real hate and violence directed at Christians and Jews, as if acknowledging it somehow threatens their narrative. The hypocrisy is staggering. And you’re right, the media absolutely downplays or buries violent incidents when the perpetrator doesn’t fit the political storyline. That selective outrage creates even more division.
What I see on the left is exactly what you described: an entire mindset built on denial, projection, and self-created victimhood. They invent things, believe their own inventions, and then demand the rest of us embrace them as truth. It’s the only way they cope with the failures of the ideology they cling to so tightly.
At this point, I don’t think those affected by TDS even recognize their own hate anymore; it’s become so ingrained that it feels completely acceptable to themSo then are you disagreeing that some of those murdered Trans people weren't killed because of hate-filled vitriol from people like Donald Trump, the late Charlie Kirk, the current TPUSA, and Matt Walsh among many other right-wing pundits."
1)
The data is very clear that multiple lines of research outside my own work point in the same direction:
– Monitoring groups have documented that waves of dehumanizing anti-LGBTQ and anti-trans rhetoric are accompanied by spikes in anti-LGBTQ hate crimes and assaults.
– Academic studies find that hostile political campaigns and policies targeting LGBTQ people are associated with more victimization and worse safety for LGBTQ communities.
– Experimental and observational research on other groups shows that eliminationist, dehumanizing rhetoric from elites increases public support for violence and correlates with spikes in hate crimes.
Taken together, the evidence strongly supports the idea that a rise in intense anti-LGBTQ hate speech—especially “eradicate them”–style rhetoric—is linked to increased risk of anti-LGBTQ hate crimes, even if we can’t match each soundbite to a specific attack one-for-one.
2) The broader research, plus my own work, all point the same way: Trump is a primary driver of anti-LGBTQ+ hate rhetoric. Others—Kirk, DeSantis, Carlson, and the rest—add to that overall volume, but they’re building on the atmosphere he sets. Because I’m using GDELT-style data, I can literally count how many times each of them, week by week, uses language that meets standard definitions of hate speech. This isn’t a vibe; it’s measurable.
3) From there, the inference is straightforward to anyone willing to look at the evidence. When Trump and his imitators ramp up dehumanizing, eliminationist talk, both hate speech and hate crimes against LGBTQ+ people rise. You can’t link any single suicide or murder to one speech act with courtroom certainty, but the pattern makes it overwhelmingly likely that this rhetoric helped create the conditions in which at least some of the deaths—like the trans person I mentioned—occurred.
And that is just factual.Your data is a pile of dung! Mostly because you've not provided any links to look it over.
I'm going to say that since you provided no real evidence that you made this up. Your comprehension of the word "factual" is very suspect.
Charlie Kirk told the truth about transpeople. A trans woman is not a woman but a man pretending to be one. Matt Walsh also tells the truth about trans people. When individuals aren't able to handle the truth that says more about them than the person stating the truth.
Sad so many on the left are stuck in their delusional world.Don't be lazy, look it up yourself. Better yet, find studies that disprove what I reported.
Kirk didn't give just his opinion that Trans people are pretending - which science says is a crok opinion - he promotes their extermination from society. The former is not hate speech but the latter is (unless you can't tell the difference) and people DO act on that speech leading to harm or death.
That is just a fact.Fact? How odd, Kirk's views were his own, and he could back up his own views. From what I can see, Charlie Kirk’s views come from his Christian beliefs, and he expresses them under free speech. Some people may disagree or feel offended, but that doesn’t automatically mean he is advocating for harm or ‘extermination.’ His religion supports the moral framework from which he speaks, even if others reject it.
His comments can be found, and need to be read with the skill of deciphering context. He carefully chose his words to match his beliefs.But, Kirk’s interpretation is hardly a standard and can be questioned as to its accuracy and relevancy.
"But, Kirk’s interpretation is hardly a standard and can be questioned as to its accuracy and relevancy." Cred
I understand that his interpretation can be questioned; anyone’s can. That’s the nature of public debate. But for me, that’s exactly why we have free speech in the first place. People are allowed to bring their own moral framework, their own life experience, and yes, their own faith into the conversation.
I’m not arguing that Charlie Kirk’s interpretation is the “standard.” I’m simply saying he has the right to express it, and others have the right to disagree. What I won’t do is pretend that holding a Christian-based viewpoint automatically makes someone dangerous or extreme. Disagreement is normal. Trying to delegitimize a person’s voice because you don’t like their framework is something very different — and I’m not willing to go down that road.
I get that people can question Kirk’s interpretation; that’s fair. But we also can’t ignore the reality that millions of people respect his views and find value in what he says. We may not all agree with him, but dismissing his entire perspective, and by extension, the millions who listen to him, starts to sound a lot like that old “basket of deplorables” attitude.
I think when listening to Charlie, you really need to be good at deciphering context, especially if you’re not already in his mindset.Why should the listener have to be "good deciphering context ...". Isn't it the speaker's duty to be clear and precise?
And when I have listened to Kirk, he is very easy to decipher - hate all gays in any form. They, "For the good of society… transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level.
That is very clear and precise regarding what he wants to have happen to transgenders.I think when listening to Charlie, you really need to be good at deciphering context, especially if you’re not already in his mindset.
I do have problem with the principle of deciphering. I figure that “context” is an excuse to explain away what was clearly stated by anybody. All this creepy cryptologist stuff is just a cover up to make unacceptable words and statements palatable. Say what you mean and mean what you say.None of you seem capable of defining what is a woman.
What is it?
What defines a woman and a man?
Provide a definition.It is obvious to most of us but a human woman or man "is a person whose gender identity is female or male (and sometimes both), shaped by a complex interaction of genetics, reproductive biology, hormones, brain development, and social and environmental influences.”
"a person whose gender identity"
That makes no sense. That is like saying a bear is a creature that identifies as a bear. It's circular reasoning.
Can I identify as Asian? They are the wealthiest socioeconomic race in the United States. Shouldn't I be able to identify as Asian? Would that make me Asian? If I had my eyes altered and looked Asian...would I then be Asian?
I may identify as black during the month of February. If all it takes to be something is to identify as it, there are a lot of things I may become.I realize it makes no sense to you, but it does make sense to those who study this stuff.
You’re mixing three different kinds of categories — species, race, and gender — and assuming they all work the same way. They don’t.
Species (bear/human) is a biological classification based on genetics, reproductive compatibility, and evolutionary lineage. Bears don’t have gender identity because they don’t have symbolic language, social gender roles, or self-concepts. So “a bear identifies as a bear” is a category error.
Race/ethnicity refers to ancestry, cultural origin, and shared history. You can like another culture, live in it, marry into it, or even adopt it — but ancestry doesn’t change. So no, identifying as Asian wouldn’t make someone genetically or ancestrally Asian.
Gender, in contrast, is a human psychological and social identity category, recognized by the APA, AMA, Endocrine Society, WHO, etc. A person’s gender identity isn’t assigned by chromosomes alone — it’s their deeply rooted internal sense of being male, female, both, or neither, which usually aligns with sex but not always.
So “a woman is someone whose gender identity is female” isn’t circular — it’s parallel to other accepted identity categories:
A Christian is someone who identifies with and practices Christianity.
A Democrat is someone who identifies with and affiliates with the Democratic Party.
A Musician is someone who identifies as, trains as, and practices being a musician.
Identity-based definitions are normal and valid — they describe membership within human social categories, not biological taxa.
And the reason gender identity carries legal and medical weight — while race- or species-identity claims do not — is because:
Gender identity is real, measurable, stable, and clinically recognized,
It has predictable developmental, neurological, and psychological correlates, and
Denying it leads to documented harm, which is why every major medical organization affirms it. Only the uninformed and closed minded still believe in the archaic definition.
So the analogy isn’t revealing a flaw in the definition — it’s revealing a misunderstanding of how different categories function.Again, you gave a complex answer to a simple question.
IF I identify as Asian, does that make me Asian? Forget my skin color or physical appearance. If I identify as something does that make me that thing?
I could use the argument that I've always felt inside I was Asian. That by transitioning to Asian I am becoming who I truly am.
Would you support me in my quest to become the Asian as I identify?If that is what you want.
What right do I have to stop you even though I am guessing science says that would be futile? But then going to the moon was thought to be futile once upon a time.Support lies has long been the goal and action of Government. Supporting Mike in a futile quest to be Asian would just be one more - are you sure you would wish to participate in, support and promote a lie?
And again, you ask a simple question about a complex issue. As much as you would like it to be, being human is not simple. So, because we are such a complex organism, it deserves a complex response.
You are also off-base in this regard as well.
You’re treating all identities as if they work the same way when they don’t. “I identify as Asian” and “I am a woman” are not the same kind of claim.
1. Race and gender are different kinds of categories.
Race/ethnicity in our society is tied to [iancestry, family history, and how others read your background[/i]. You can love Asian culture, live in Japan, marry into an Asian family, whatever—but that doesn’t change your ancestry. There’s no serious medical, legal, or social framework that says “you can transition into being racially Asian.”
[bGender identity is a well-studied part of human psychology and development. [/b]Major medical organizations (APA, AMA, Endocrine Society, WHO, etc.) all recognize that some people’s internal sense of being male/female doesn’t match their birth sex, and that this mismatch (gender dysphoria) can be profound and persistent.
There are established diagnostic criteria and evidence-based treatments. It’s not “I feel like it today,” it’s a stable, cross-situational identity that shows up very early and is remarkably consistent.
So no, you can’t just swap “gender” out and plug in “Asian” like a Mad Lib. They’re not parallel.
2. “If I identify as X, does that make me X?” is a trick question.
We already accept identity-based categories everywhere:
A Christian is someone who identifies with and practices Christianity.
A Democrat is someone who identifies with and affiliates with the Democratic Party.
A musician is someone who identifies as and lives as a musician.
Nobody says, “But were you born a Democrat?” We understand those as social identities defined by commitment, practice, and role.
Gender is more like those than like “Asian.” It’s a social and psychological role humans occupy, and for trans people, all the evidence says their internal gender identity is real, persistent, and not chosen on a whim.
That’s why every major medical body says respecting that identity and allowing transition reduces distress and improves mental health not to mention reducing the violence anti-trans hate speech generates"It’s a social and psychological role humans occupy, and for trans people, all the evidence says their internal race identity is real, persistent, and not chosen on a whim."
Again, using your logic, if my internal identity as Asian is real and persistent and not chosen on a whim, am I then Asian? If I fill the social and psychological role as Asian, am I then Asian?
The fact I was born into an European body then shouldn't matter. If I identify as Asian, using your logic, then I'm Asian. My internal identity as Asian is real and persistent and not chosen on a whim. I fill the social and psychological role as Asian.
Based on your logic, the physical realities of my body no longer matter.What do you consider your "body"? Is it just the things others can see if you were naked?
My problem with conservatives is that reality is not always made of stark, immutable definitions. There are shades of gray in this matter as there is in everything else.
I also say that physical anatomy while an important aspect of defining gender, does not encompass all of it.How about race? Can I identify as black? Does it matter that I was born with a European body? Rachael Dolezal posed as a black woman for years. She even worked for the NAACP as a black woman. Both her parents are as European as me. Is she then black because her mind tells her she is black?
There was a time when a person was identified as black with a mere trace of black blood or having an African ancestor regardless of how far into the past.
Having no recognized African ancestors that she knew of Ms Dolezal claiming African American ancestry was a lie, where she is guilty. The difference is that Ms. Dolezal engaged in a deliberate deception.
But, I don’t necessarily need the head of the NAACP to be black as long as he or she works in the best interests of the organization as it is defined.
the question may not be as simple as you say.
What is the definition for being an Asian? Is it by birth to Asian parents or possessing elements of an Asian characteristic genetic code as identified by an individual? How many generations does one have to go back to find an Asian ancestor? Does anyone really know? Race constitutes more than a persons physical appearance or culture that he or she adheres to.
Since all those that are members of the human race are able to begat and multiply amongst and between themselves, what is the answer?"Race constitutes more than a persons physical appearance or culture that he or she adheres to."
Then what defines a person's race?In addition to that, Race is defined by
Ancestry / perceived lineage – who people think your people are.
Social classification – how institutions and other people categorize you (e.g., census boxes, school forms, cops, employers).
Power and history – laws, segregation, “one-drop” rules, immigration regimes, and patterns of advantage/disadvantage tied to those racial categories.
Oh, yes, what Credence already pointed out - Race is what the conservative White man says you are based on whatever criteria they care to set.Self identification seems more accurate than some sort of objective standard for an imprecise designation known as “race”. Cultural identification seems more appropriate than any hard and fast scientific explanation. Even that is more accurate than judging solely on physical appearance. The future points to the ultimate miscegenation of the human species where race will become that much more difficult to designate.
But, if I had to make a scientific approach to an explanation, what is Caucasian, negroid or asiatic can be determined by DNA. You would be surprised how much many people find that their genetic code verses how it is that they identify themselves or how they appear can be quite different. What characteristics at the genetic level are characteristic Caucasian, etc….? That is as close as I get to an objective definition of a person’s race.
Speaking of the NAACP, Walter White from early in the last century as one its leaders was black But, he was so fair skinned that he passed for white. He used that to infiltrate klaverns and learned from the inside their modus operandi and plans going forward, reporting on them."Self identification seems more accurate than some sort of objective standard for an imprecise designation known as “race”"
Okay, so, if there were scholarships being offered for blacks. Should Rachael Dolezal be able to get one? Her parents are as European as me but she identifies as black.
Should she get an academic scholarship for designed for a black student?Well, since she admitted to being a fraud, I would say no.
While race is a relative construct, there, as you allude to, has to be a practical guide. To make the determination for designation as a black student, perhaps similar prescriptions as used by Native Americans to properly designate themselves may assist.
=====
Proof of ancestry: You must provide genealogical proof to demonstrate your direct descent from an ancestor who was a member of a federally recognized tribe.
This often includes documents such as birth certificates.
Blood quantum: Many, but not all, tribes require a specific percentage of "Indian blood" to be considered for enrollment.
This is known as blood quantum and is used to trace ancestry through historical tribal rolls.Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood (CDIB):
———
Under those conditions, no, Ms.Dolezal should not receive a scholarship designated for a black student. She has no evidence of African American ancestry and she was deceptive as to her true origins that can be irrefutably proven through her DNA or genealogical records.
As for how much black genealogy or DNA is required while it is difficult to ascertain, there has to be some line drawn. After all, Not all of us can consider ourselves Native American because we may have an infinitesimal bit of ancestry from indigenous people. How many of us claim Native American ancestry…..
Like i said i have no problem with a white female at the NAACP as long as they work honestly and diligently on our behalf.
"Caucasian, negroid or asiatic can be determined by DNA"
I agree with you.
Does your DNA change if you're white and identify as black?
You can't change the reality of your DNA.
Does self identification matter more than what nature has designed you to be?But DNA is only part of the story. Those old buckets like “Caucasian, negroid, asiatic” are crude social labels laid on top of a lot of overlapping genetics. And even at the DNA level, it’s the same DNA that builds the brain that can honestly experience itself as something other than what people see on the outside. In other words, biology doesn’t just give you skin and hair; it also gives you a mind, and that mind is where identity is actually lived.
DNA is the most irrefutable form of information available to objectively make correct identification in regard to your comment.
The point is there are many with DNA elements from each of the three major racial designations, which ones take precedence? Therefore, there is a role for nurture that is more than just incidental.
Cred, I do get what you’re saying, and I agree that people should say what they mean and mean what they say. But I also think it’s not always as straightforward as it sounds. We all come from different places and carry different mindsets, values, and life experiences, and those things naturally shape how we speak and how we interpret others. That’s why context can be tricky. In Charlie’s case, a lot of what he said came through his own religious beliefs, so if someone doesn’t share or recognize that perspective, they’re not going to hear him the same way.
In my opinion, Charlie came from a very specific conservative, Christian-based mindset, and that really shaped how he expressed himself. He was young and passionate, and a lot of what he shared leaned on traditional values, free-market thinking, and a belief that the country was rooted in Judeo-Christian principles. He also tended to be polite in the way he debated, he listened, he didn’t interrupt people who disagreed with him, and he managed to push back without being condescending about someone else’s view or how they presented it. He spoke in a very direct, confident way, but always through his own religious and cultural outlook. So if someone didn’t share that same background or worldview, they were naturally going to hear him differently. To me, it’s not about decoding or excusing anything, just understanding that he communicated through a lens that not everyone automatically connected with.I know that we have spoken about Kirk before, Sharlee.
His Judeo-Christian background border on Christian Nationalism. His videos cannot compensate for clear racist, misogynist or homophobic comments that has been documented across the web as to the fact that he did utter them. Regarding these sorts of comments, there can no middle ground. In my opinion, that is no basis for “reinterpretation” when someone says such things. Stated racism has no reasonable nuance as far as I am concerned. I remember a video on the old Dick Cavett show eons ago, where Lester Maddox, notorious segregationist, appeared as a guest. He, too, was very polite.
True judeo-Christianity means bringing people together and not promoting schisms amongst them. Quite frankly, I have never heard of this guy or knew much about him until his death. His celebrity seemed to be limited to right wing/conservative audiences. That lack of connection could explain why he was not universally heralded over a larger audience.I agree that no one should excuse clearly racist, misogynistic, or homophobic statements. When someone actually makes those remarks, they stand on their own, and people are right to judge them seriously.
At the same time, I think it’s also fair to look at any public figure in full context before drawing absolute conclusions. Sometimes clips are cut, sometimes statements are framed harshly, and sometimes they really are as bad as they sound. I prefer to see the whole picture so I know I’m reacting to what a person actually meant, not just what gets circulated online.
As for his Judeo-Christian background, there’s a big difference between living one’s faith and promoting Christian Nationalism. Plenty of people speak from a faith tradition without crossing into that territory. Whether he did or didn’t, in my view, is something people can reasonably debate, but I don’t think his religious identity alone proves harmful intent.
You make a fair point that true Judeo-Christian values should bring people together rather than divide them. I also agree that politeness, like Lester Maddox being polite on Cavett — doesn’t erase bad views. But I think it’s possible to acknowledge all of that while still avoiding blanket conclusions, especially if many people only heard of him after his death.
If the comments people cite are accurate, they should be condemned. But it’s also reasonable to evaluate the full context and his broader work before assuming the worst. Common sense and fairness can coexist with rejecting genuine bigotry.You have been presented clear evidence that has been sourced, not just edited clips, that Kirk is a misogynic, bigoted racist, homophobe of the first order. You have seen to have chosen not to believe what is right in front of you, that is your right, but your lack of belief doesn't change the facts.
"You have been presented clear evidence that has been sourced, not just edited clips, that Kirk is a misogynic, bigoted racist, homophobe of the first order. You have seen to have chosen not to believe what is right in front of you, that is your right, but your lack of belief doesn't change the facts." ECO
I shared my opinion with Cred regarding this subject. My comment consisted solely of my view—I did not present anything as fact. You chose to insult my viewpoint with a nonsensical assumption, claiming you needed to “point out facts.” My comment was simply an opinion I shared with Cred.
So let me repeat myself: I have no interest in your view on the matter. My honest opinion is that you converse poorly, resorting to name-calling and making accusations you have no right to make about other users. I have no respect for anyone who communicates in that way. It's odd that you continue to approach me when I take the time to point out your rudeness and lack of communication skills.
Cred, I agree that no one should excuse clearly racist, misogynistic, or homophobic statements. When someone actually makes those remarks, they stand on their own, and people are right to judge them seriously.
At the same time, I think it’s also fair to look at any public figure in full context before drawing absolute conclusions. Sometimes clips are cut, sometimes statements are framed harshly, and sometimes they really are as bad as they sound. I prefer to see the whole picture so I know I’m reacting to what a person actually meant, not just what gets circulated online.
As for his Judeo-Christian background, there’s a big difference between living one’s faith and promoting Christian Nationalism. Plenty of people speak from a faith tradition without crossing into that territory. Whether he did or didn’t, in my view, is something people can reasonably debate, but I don’t think his religious identity alone proves harmful intent.
You make a fair point that true Judeo-Christian values should bring people together rather than divide them. I also agree that politeness, like Lester Maddox being polite on Cavett — doesn’t erase bad views. But I think it’s possible to acknowledge all of that while still avoiding blanket conclusions, especially if many people only heard of him after his death.
If the comments people cite are accurate, they should be condemned. But it’s also reasonable to evaluate the full context and his broader work before assuming the worst. Common sense and fairness can coexist with rejecting genuine bigotry.
I think Kirk crossed that Christian Nationalism border a long time ago
His hateful comments are sometimes so numerous that they can be statistically detected in overall online hate-speech trends.
Unfortunately, the audience he speaks to contain some of those most likely to act on the hate he spews.I think we need to be honest about where the real danger is coming from. We’re seeing a growing pattern of left-aligned violence, whether it’s attacks on ICE officers, assaults on federal law-enforcement facilities, or even the shooting of two of our National Guard members just yesterday by an immigrant who never should have been here. And what makes it worse is the steady stream of dog whistles coming from certain members of Congress, statements that essentially give the green light for “resistance-style” violence. Those dog whistles don’t create violent people, but they absolutely empower the ones who already have it in them. That’s the very outcome the far-left seems to rely on: individuals who will carry out the aggression they themselves won’t openly admit to.
So when someone claims Charlie Kirk is the one inspiring violence, I just can’t take it seriously unless they’re willing to acknowledge the very real, physical attacks happening right now, attacks that are being fueled, encouraged, or at the very least excused by the rhetoric of their own side. If we’re going to talk about dangerous speech, then we need to talk about all of it, not just the parts that fit a political storyline.
I would be so ashamed to back a political party that seeks violence and is willing to do just about anything to regain power.Then why do you back the Republican party if you are ashamed that it seeks violence and is willing to do just about anything to regain power including staging an insurrection (unless you are one of those Trump has convinced to believe liberals invaded the Capitol).
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
Same tactic; falsely accuse one of evil crimes then ask why they did it. No true answer is possible; they all lead to the acceptance of the accusation whether true or false.
A good tactic for the ignorant, the stupid and those that don't recognize such diversions. Which do you think Sharlee is? Ignorant, Stupid or Unaware?I was simply sharing my view of the Democratic Party and those who support it at this point. Honestly, I would be ashamed to admit it if I supported a party I see as this corrupt and misguided. Not to mention dangerous to our Constitution.
Yet you don't see the most corrupt party - the MAGA party - as corrupt. Interesting.
I support the Democratic Party and there are many intelligent people who do. Do you really believe that virtually half of this country is misled and misguided? How much “emotion” is involved coming to a conclusion like that?
It is called PROJECTION, Credence, She is really talking about her party and not the Democrats.
I agree that "... we need to be honest about where the real danger is coming from."
But it is CLEARLY not from the left - IF you rely on the data.
Even though there might be (too soon to tell, really) a small blip in violence from the left, it disappears in the volume of political violence from the Right.
ChatGPT - A National Institute of Justice study shows that since 1990 far-right extremists have carried out 227 ideologically motivated homicide events causing over 520 deaths, compared to just 42 attacks and 78 deaths from far-left extremists.
ADL data finds that roughly three-quarters to over 90% of extremist murders in the last decade were committed by right-wing extremists, and in 2022 every single extremist-related killing was by the right.
The Right-wing Cato Institute analysis similarly concludes that in the last five years, 54% of political murders were by the right, 22% by the left, and 21% by Islamist extremists, and since 1975 right-wing actors have caused about 63% of politically motivated deaths in the U.S.
In other words, whatever we think of rhetoric or protests on the left, when we talk about lethal political violence in America, the numbers point overwhelmingly to the far right, not the left.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
+3
The Guardian
+3
Municipality of Anchorage
+3
That is what the FACTS say and you can choose to ignore them if you want.My view is that this comes from the far-left wing of the Democratic Party, along with the party loyalists who don’t have the backbone to say, “No more — you’ve ruined our party.”
I base my opinions on what I actually witness. I don’t rely on a failed media or poorly educated journalists to tell me what to think. I look directly at the issues myself and use my intelligence and common sense to form my views. I’m simply not interested in being lectured by people I believe are unprepared to do so.
I will leave that to you."And you don't rely of facts either, it seems." ECO
I rely on facts that can actually be proven. Those aren’t hard to find. What is hard to find are people who understand the difference between a verified fact and something that’s merely alleged or accused. I feel like we’re living in a strange society where many people will believe almost anything, and if it fits what they want to hear, they swallow it whole. I have a very clear type of logic, and I try to separate fact from opinion no matter how popular or convenient a claim may be.That is a standard ploy, just denying the facts developed from studies (I won't bother to repeat them again here sense they fall on deaf ears) one doesn't like.
You believe Trump don't you? How strange is that."That is a standard ploy, just denying the facts developed from studies (I won't bother to repeat them again here sense they fall on deaf ears) one doesn't like.
You believe Trump don't you? How strange is that." ECO
Your bait is obvious. This kind of nonsense doesn’t spark real conversation; it just shows how desperate someone is to insult others with silly, meaningless remarks.What bait? You claimed "I feel like we’re living in a strange society where many people will believe almost anything, and if it fits what they want to hear, they swallow it whole. "
I just made the obvious observation that you "believe almost anything [ the pathological liar Trump says], and if it fits what they want to hear, they swallow it whole.
Isn't that exactly what you do? Show me where I am wrong and I will apoligize.
“So when someone claims Charlie Kirk is the one inspiring violence, I just can’t take it seriously unless they’re willing to acknowledge the very real, physical attacks happening right now, attacks that are being fueled, encouraged, or at the very least excused by the rhetoric of their own side. If we’re going to talk about dangerous speech, then we need to talk about all of it, not just the parts that fit a political storyline.”
I wont go so far to say that Charlie fomented violence, but with his agenda and viewpoints there is no way that I could call him a friend.The information I have points very strongly that Kirk's words have harmed and even killed his targets.
Mike likes simplicity. It is as simple as this:
1. Kirk posts things demanding that Transgenders be wiped from society (he did that and is a fact).
2. Others pick it up and amplify it.
3. It can be shown statistically that this will raise the level of overall LGBTQ+ hate speech in that time period. That is Factual
4. That, in turn, can be statistically shown to correspond in the same or just after that time period to incidents of hate crime against the LGBTQ+ community. That is Factual
Now, if that were the ONLY time Kirk did that, it would be buried in the noise. But what makes it statistically trackable is that he has done it over and over again over a period of years. That provides enough data points to draw valid conclusions from.
Also, Mike's analysis is a deflection. He presumes we think that ONLY Kirk is causing violence against others. We know that is not true, it is many others on the Right and on the Left.
But, what is a Fact is that the level of hate speech among the Right is an dramatically higher than the level of hate speech from the Left.I applaud your imagination.
The fact is delusional thinking makes it impossible for those on the left to comprehend facts, truth, or reality.
At this point, the left is merely entertaining.
When I reread my comment, I realized I should have been more precise about what I meant by left-wing violence. In recent years, particularly during and after the Trump years, I’ve seen a new pattern of aggression emerging on the left that wasn’t nearly as visible before. Over the past year, especially, there has been a clear uptick in various forms of left-wing political hostility. I should also add that right-wing violence has been a serious problem for decades, though it appears to be less prevalent right now.
What worries me is that the problem of political violence really does seem to be getting worse, and I think the words of politicians, along with the constant amplification on social media, are playing a real role in that. I’m seeing more and more examples where people interpret heated rhetoric as a kind of “green light” to act out. It’s as if some hear a dog whistle and believe they’ve been given permission to become violent. This is a growing phenomenon, and if it continues, it’s going to become truly dangerous.I always try to check out other's claims to make sure my preconceived notions are still valid or if the proper context was included. I this case I checked out the claim
"Over the past year, especially, there has been a clear uptick in various forms of left-wing political hostility. I should also add that right-wing violence has been a serious problem for decades, though it appears to be less prevalent right now."
What I found was that yes, over the period from Jan 1 to July 4, 2025 CSIS found that left-wing violence did increase - it increased from one incident in all of 2024 to five in the first 6 months of 2025. (there is no reliable data yet for the last 5 months of 2025)
Without doing deep research, ChatGPT could only determine that the long-run average for Right-Wing violence is 20 per year for 2016 - 2024 while for Left-Wing violence the average was just 8 per year.
The Left has a long way to go before it gets even close to how dangerous right-wing violence is.
I checked on Kirk's assignation. It seems they will classify that as an act of left-wing violence which, in my opinion, is BS. While the killing is obviously out of anger and fear of Kirk's gay bashing, the shooter has no known ties to any left-wing groups (unless you consider Trump-supporting gay groups as left-wing).
I also asked about your claim that " I’m seeing more and more examples where people interpret heated rhetoric as a kind of “green light” to act out. It’s as if some hear a dog whistle and believe they’ve been given permission to become violent.", (which says you agree with my point about Kirk's hate speech)
Anyway, it modified something I came up with into something more reasonable -
“Even taking the CSIS numbers at face value, left-wing incidents in 2025 are still small-N and below the spike years of 2020 and 2022 (8 incidents each). With numbers that low, you simply can’t infer some big surge in ‘left-wing hate speech’ or a coordinated green light from mainstream Democrats. At most, you can say there’s been a short-term uptick in a tiny fringe.” and I would add more than likely motivate by ICE terrorism rather than any speech.Yes, the tendency to “act out” has been more prevelant. It is almost as if the political mileau give people an unspoken permission to misbehave. If there has been an uptick in leftwing oriented violence, it still is dwarfed by that coming from the right wing of politics.
Your deflecting. We aren't talking about views, are we. We are talking about divisive, dangerous hate speech.
Are you trying tell me that it is Christian belief to say that transgender people (who are God's people after all) should "For the good of society… transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level"?
That was said by Michael Knowles said at CPAC 2023. Kirk then brought him on his show to repeat and amplify it so more people could hear it.
Try focusing on that instead of deflecting away from it.
So, are your interpretations and observations really that simple, Mike?
After researching a bit, I see that there is lot more to being a transgender woman than a man pretending to be a woman.
======
Secondary sex characteristics may present on a spectrum of development in patients undergoing hormone therapy, to some degree dependent on duration of hormone use and age of initiation.
Transgender men may have facial and body hair growth, clitoromegaly, increased muscle mass, masculine fat redistribution, androgenic alopecia, and acne.
Transgender women may have breast development (often underdeveloped), feminine fat redistribution, reduced muscle mass, thinned or absent body hair, thinned or absent facial hair, softened, thinner skin, and testicles that have decreased in size or completely retract.[4]
Patients who have undergone gender affirming surgeries may have varying physical exam findings depending on the procedures performed, approaches used, and occurrence of complications. Providers should maintain an organ inventory to guide screening and management of certain specific complaints
====
Well, I don’t consider any of these symptoms as normal and believe that they have nothing to do with a “choice” to be a man or a woman. How do we expect people that exhibit such traits and symptoms to behave? Are you really in a position to pass a judgement? So, now what?Cred,
I comment their dedication to their costume, but it comes down to what is a woman? What is a man?
I say a female is an adult human female. A male is and adult human male. You can't automatically change XY Chromosomes into XX. You can't sprout a prostate or ovaries.
A black minster put it best. He had this on a poster outside his church. I think this is accurate.
*A man cannot become a woman and a woman cannot become a man.
*All that can be done and all that has ever been done is to chemically and/or surgically alter a person's body to provide the illusion that they are the opposite sex.
*It is just an illusion.
*These are facts.
*They are indisputable.You clearly decided not to read the science you have been provided that clearly shows that it is not just a penis that makes a man or a vagina a woman. Those are just superficial characteristics that HELP define what a man or a woman really is.
This isn’t just a feeling or an ideology. the FACT IS there are measurable, biological differences linked to gender identity.
When you look at groups, MRI studies consistently find that trans women’s brains differ from cis men’s and, in some areas, resemble cis women’s more. It’s not a perfect ‘test,’ but it absolutely undermines the idea that this is just a ‘delusion.’”Absolute nonsense.
So, define what is a woman.
I will stick with the black minister's post.
They are the facts and not based on junk science.
*A man cannot become a woman and a woman cannot become a man.
*All that can be done and all that has ever been done is to chemically and/or surgically alter a person's body to provide the illusion that they are the opposite sex.
*It is just an illusion.
*These are facts.
*They are indisputable.
I comment their dedication to their costume, but it comes down to what is a woman? What is a man?
But is a person, born supposedly male, with shrunken testicles harboring female body characteristics really a “man” in the classic definition? I don’t agree with “indisputable”, I believe that the matter is more complicated.
So, we agree to disagree…….Here is the problem though. If science is accepted (he never proved it is junk science, that is only his wrong-headed opinion) that people have no reason to go out and kill or hurt LGBTQ9+ people.
It is those who believe wrongly that the genitalia is the ONLY thing that defines a man or a women that sets the stage for hate speech and great harm to their targets.
To believe that genitalia is the end all, be all is to live in the dark ages.
But, some people just can't keep up with the times.
Did Charlie tell the truth about the aspirations of black women, or the competence of black airline pilots?
Why am I not surprised?
Therapist says he received threats after calling ‘Trump derangement syndrome' real 'pathology'
Jonathan Alpert faced backlash following Wall Street Journal op-ed about patients obsessed with president
A Manhattan-based psychotherapist claims he has received dozens of hate messages, including death threats, since speaking publicly about seeing patients in his practice he describes as experiencing "Trump derangement syndrome."
Jonathan Alpert, author of the forthcoming book "Therapy Nation," said he faced backlash after appearing on Fox News last week to discuss his Nov. 12 Wall Street Journal op-ed about "patients across the political spectrum" who bring up President Donald Trump in therapy sessions "not to discuss policy but to process obsession, rage and dread."
Alpert shared with Fox News Digital several messages he said he received via text and email over the past week.
"Eat s--- and die you racist fascist piece of s---… f---ing uneducated MAGA scumbag," one message read.
"Pedophile protector," another said.
"You're a lowlife, worthless fraudulent piece of s--- pedophile who decent people hope is slaughtered, and the video is posted to YouTube," a third message read.
"It’s been intense," Alpert reacted to the messages, in an interview with Fox News Digital. "I expected disagreement, but I didn’t expect the level of hostility, especially from people in the mental health field."
"What has stood out is the contradiction," he added. "Many of the people who speak the most about empathy, tolerance and inclusion reacted with the least of it. That reversal tells us something about how emotionally charged politics has become."
During a segment on "The Faulkner Focus" on Nov. 14, Alpert said "Trump derangement syndrome" is not just a political insult but a real psychological pattern he has observed in his practice.
"This is a profound pathology, and I would even go so far as to call it the defining pathology of our time," he said on-air. "People are obsessed with Trump. They’re hyper-fixated on him. They can’t sleep, they feel restless, they feel traumatized by Mr. Trump."
He recalled one patient who said she couldn’t enjoy a vacation because every time she saw Trump on the news or on her phone, she felt "triggered."
In his practice, Alpert estimates that about three-quarters of his patients display symptoms of what he calls "TDS." He emphasized, however, that the phrase is not a medical diagnosis and that he sees these reactions among people across the political spectrum.
"Trump derangement syndrome is not a diagnosis," he said. "It’s not a way of labeling someone’s political beliefs as a mental illness. People can support or oppose Trump for all kinds of rational reasons. What I’m describing is an emotional pattern, not an ideology. It shows up when someone’s political feelings become so intense and consuming that they start to interfere with their daily life."
Alpert said he has noticed that people are more "on edge" and "emotional" about Trump than when he first took office in 2017, reflecting a broader pattern in how people process political disagreement.
"People aren’t separating disagreement from threat anymore," he said, adding that the spread of therapy language into mainstream culture has worsened the problem.
"Instead of saying ‘I disagree,’ people say ‘I’m triggered’ or ‘I feel unsafe,’" Alpert continued. "Those words escalate everything. They frame the other person as dangerous rather than different, and they shut down discussion."
He believes that for many, their views on Trump — positive or negative — have become central to their identity and value system.
Alpert said he has also received messages of support from people who say they know someone affected by "Trump derangement syndrome."
"What I’m seeing clinically is that many patients are relieved to talk with someone who isn’t afraid to name what’s happening," he told Fox News Digital.
Some mental health professionals, however, caution against labeling political emotions as pathology. In a letter to the editor following Alpert’s op-ed, Dr. Robin Weiss, a psychiatrist in Baltimore, said that while she agreed clinicians should help patients remain emotionally stable regardless of politics, it’s also their duty to "document societal harm when we see it," citing the example of a state health worker whose job was being threatened due to federal cuts.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/therapist … -pathologyMike, after reading this article, I can’t help but say that I am a true believer in what people call “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” because the unharnessed hate I’ve seen in those affected by it is one of the primary symptoms. What Alpert describes in his practice mirrors exactly what I’ve seen play out in everyday life: people who are so emotionally consumed by Donald Trump that they can’t separate disagreement from personal threat. To me, this isn’t about policy anymore; it’s about an obsession that manifests as rage, dread, and hostility toward anyone who doesn’t share that intensity. The fact that this therapist received death threats from people who claim to champion empathy and tolerance only reinforces the contradiction he talks about. Politics has become so emotionally charged that some individuals have lost all sense of proportion, and their hatred has overtaken any ability to think rationally. I appreciate that Alpert was willing to put a name to this pattern, because the rest of us have been watching it unfold for years. It is very hard to put up with those who are affected, and scary to think there may be no cure...
How about YOUR unharnessed hate for Biden, do you have a problem with that?
"How about YOUR unharnessed hate for Biden, do you have a problem with that?" ECO
I have never claimed to hate President Biden, nor have I ever expressed personal dislike toward him. My critiques are focused solely on his job performance, his cognitive state, and his political decisions.
I make a conscious effort to avoid demeaning labels and to keep my commentary civil and measured. In my view, too many people today resort to insulting others. In my view, this is due to low self-esteem and an inability to move beyond their own shortcomings. They lash out as a way to relieve frustration, often because they lack healthier tools for communication. I see this kind of behavior as a clear reflection of poor judgment and a limited capacity for thoughtful engagement.And I have never claimed I hate Trump but you and the others say I do. I do hate some people, like Putin for instance. But as I have said many times before I don't hate Trump.. If he weren't' so mentally ill I could, for he deserves it many times over. But he has a disability that he can't control so I can't hate him. I only hate what he has done.
You are diverting --- I did not accuse you or ask you about hating Trump... Not sure why you need to defend yourself when no accusation was pointed your way.
"And I have never claimed I hate Trump but you and the others say I do. I do hate some people, like Putin for instance. But as I have said many times before I don't hate Trump.. If he weren't' so mentally ill I could, for he deserves it many times over. But he has a disability that he can't control so I can't hate him. I only hate what he has done." ECO
Sharlee01 wrote:
"How about YOUR unharnessed hate for Biden, do you have a problem with that?" ECO
I have never claimed to hate President Biden, nor have I ever expressed personal dislike toward him. My critiques are focused solely on his job performance, his cognitive state, and his political decisions.
I make a conscious effort to avoid demeaning labels and to keep my commentary civil and measured. In my view, too many people today resort to insulting others. In my view, this is due to low self-esteem and an inability to move beyond their own shortcomings. They lash out as a way to relieve frustration, often because they lack healthier tools for communication. I see this kind of behavior as a clear reflection of poor judgment and a limited capacity for thoughtful engagement.
Sure, the guy exists and he says he got threats after writing about “Trump derangement syndrome.” But that doesn’t magically turn a Fox-coined insult into a real psychiatric diagnosis.
Here is a FACT - TDS isn’t in the DSM, it started as a political slur, and even he admits it’s not an actual diagnosis. What he’s really describing is people having intense emotional reactions to Trump in a very polarized, high-stakes period — which is a normal human response to politics, not evidence that criticizing Trump is a mental illness.Here is the most important part of what you posted
"Dr. Robin Weiss, a psychiatrist in Baltimore, said that while she agreed clinicians should help patients remain emotionally stable regardless of politics, it’s also their duty to "document societal harm when we see it," "
And HUNDREDS of mental health professionals have all said Trump is dangerously mentally ill.
Here is an excerpt of my upcoming book on Conservatism in America. It should ring true as it is happening again today. (There are no citations with this excerpt but there will be plenty in the actual book.)
[i]"White elites quickly understood that to maintain political power in the post-Reconstruction South, they would need to suppress the Black vote without explicitly invoking race. The Fifteenth Amendment had outlawed racial discrimination in voting, but southern states found workarounds in language that seemed neutral on its face but was devastating in effect. In 1890, Mississippi pioneered a new state constitution that required voters to pass literacy and “understanding” tests—administered entirely at the discretion of white registrars. The intent was clear: keep the poor and Black from voting while claiming procedural legitimacy. Louisiana followed in 1898 with a “grandfather clause” that exempted those whose ancestors could vote before the Civil War. That effectively excused all illiterate whites while ensnaring nearly every Black voter. Alabama’s 1901 constitution added poll taxes and voter registration requirements so onerous they could exclude even educated professionals. North Carolina and Virginia refined their own versions soon after.
Each of these states produced Black test cases challenging the laws in federal court. But a right-leaning Supreme Court refused to intervene. In Williams v. Mississippi (1898), the Court accepted Mississippi’s laws as race-neutral, ignoring how they functioned in practice. In Giles v. Harris (1903), the Court effectively threw up its hands, arguing that federal judges were powerless to reconstruct an entire state political system—even when its purpose was plainly to disenfranchise Black citizens. As a result, Black voter rolls collapsed. In Louisiana alone, the number of registered Black voters fell from over 130,000 in 1896 to fewer than 1,400 by 1904. And yet not a single statute ever said, “Black men cannot vote.” That was the brilliance—and the cruelty—of the conservative legal campaign: to write race out of the law while ensuring that race defined its results."[/b]
I am sure Credence will understand its analogy to Trump's America.It amazes me how so obvious a ruse by Southern States to keep blacks from voting avoiding compliance with the 15th Amendment was not challenged by the court for its clear intent.
The same dirty tricks are employed by Republicans today shrouded in the idea and permission given them by the right wing tribunal that redistricting for partisan advantage is legal. Saying that the intent is not racial disenfranchisement is just a lie, it is just the same old 19th century style ruse using a different approach.Examples of Republicans making laws requiring reading ability to vote? Or anything else that was a "dirty trick" 130 years ago that they have done recently?
I'm sure Credence will find his own to answer your strawman, but here are just a few of mine:
– Voting laws built using racial turnout data, which one federal court said targeted Black voters with “almost surgical precision.” - North Carolina (HB 589, 2013)
– Voter ID and proof-of-citizenship rules that accept IDs whites are likelier to have and reject IDs students and minorities are likelier to have. Texas (SB 14 voter ID law)
– Aggressive purges and “exact match” registration rules that disproportionately knock Black and Latino voters off the rolls. Ohio purges and Georgia (“exact match” and registration holds under Sec. of State Kemp)
– Closing polling places and cutting early voting in heavily Black neighborhoods so they get 3-hour lines while white suburbs don’t. Georgia, Texas, Arizona (polling place closures and consolidation) and North Carolina & Georgia (cutting early voting used by Black voters)
And all this under the pretense to fix a non-existent voter fraud problem Hell, even Florida made it harder for my wife and I to vote.I could not improve upon this much, I say “bullseye”. Gerrymander and redistricting is in conflict with the idea of one man one vote, and deliberately neutralizing the votes of your opponents should be banned nationwide. It is a travesty that a right wing oriented Supreme Court would not weigh in and truly appreciate the underlying implications of their ruling.
My guess is they "appreciated it" fine, lol. Those conservatives knew exactly what would result and why.
I didn't see anything about reading ability in this list...
Well,Wilderness, I believe that ESO’s response to this comment speaks for me as well.
I believe that partisan redistricting or gerrymandering should be illegal in all 50 states, if it were we would not be going through the current crisis that began with Texas recently.I agree with you. Neither party would be happy as both do it, but I would prefer it.
Perhaps strips, from southern to northern border, all adjusted in width so each has the same number of citizens? Or perhaps registered voters? Might be a thousand miles long, but so what?The sad thing is that Congress has the power to do that, but won't.
It wasn't challenged by the court because it was made of the same kind conservatives that make up today's court. That is one of the reasons we live in such dangerous times; which look so much like those of the late 1800s and early 1900s
I presented a couple of paragraphs from my book regarding some of the things conservatives did to suppress Black voting after they destroyed Reconstruction. The conservative's goal was to overturn the 15th Amendment without a vote from Congress and the States.
A comment requested that we provide similar examples of the same kind of efforts being made today by conservatives to suppress Black voting.
I, and others, did so, only to get the reply that they wanted examples of EXACTLY the same things I listed, otherwise my list wasn't good enough.
I made the mistake of thinking the request was serious in nature and not just an example of how to be obtuse.My pleasure. I would love to hear from you, if you do read it.
Somebody said they don't hate President Biden. My retort is you don't have to say it specifically when It comes across loud and clear with the volume of hateful, spiteful things that person has said about him for the last several years. I sure hope they don't deny that because it will be real easy to find hundreds of examples.
" I don't hate Trump.. "
Using your logic applied.
"you don't have to say it specifically when It comes across loud and clear with the volume of hateful, spiteful things that person has said about him for the last several years. I sure hope they don't deny that because it will be real easy to find hundreds of examples."I guess you didn't read all of what I wrote. I said I can't hate Trump because he is mentally disabled.
I have a question - do any of you defend the practice of Jim Crow?
Don't you find it odd that those who oppose using race as a factor in college admissions DO NOT mind athletes getting preferences or donors kids getting preferences or whites getting preference or the affluent getting preferences? Why is it Blacks are denied equal protection under the law while all these other groups are privileged?
Shouldn't admission to college be totally based on objective scores on tests like the SAT or ACT as well as HS grades and nothing else?
Here is another line from my book that is so true: "Affirmative action did not die in a vacuum. It died at the hands of a conservative project that has long treated efforts to fix structural inequality as more offensive than the inequality itself."I watch as the well heeled defend their children’s access to “legacy admissions”, a form of affirmative action for the wealthy. Good point about the jocks for those getting in based on the ability to run like a gazelle or dribble a basketball.
Since we know that not all high schools are equal based simply on community resources designated for any one school, evaluating student entry based on high school grades is a fair leveling system, so that the wealthy are not the only ones who can get into higher education.
From my own analysis which is still being refined:
Here’s the quick read of that summary:
Signal: The hate-speech index is a strong positive predictor of incidents. A 1-unit rise in the HateIndex is associated with about +18.9 incidents (p ≈ 0.0008), holding the other terms fixed. If the index is z-scored, that’s ~+19 incidents for a 1-SD bump.
Era effect (2021–2022): Incidents were ~+30 higher in 2021–2022 vs. other periods, marginally significant (p ≈ 0.091). (This was a change in FBI methodology)
Kirk subindex: Positive but “borderline” (+31.8, p ≈ 0.095). It may matter, but the evidence here is weaker. (I am still refining this)
Fit quality: R² ≈ 0.59 (Adj. R² ≈ 0.585) — the model explains ~59% of the variance; RMSE ≈ 23.5 incidents (typical prediction error for this kind of data). Use AIC/BIC to compare to alternative specs.
Baseline level: Intercept ≈ 118 anti-LGBTQ+ incidents per month when covariates are zero (mostly a centering reference). - this means that when hate speech is at an average level, there are ~118 incidents of violence against the LGBTQ+ month. When Trump, Kirk, or others start generating more hate speech, the number of violent incidents increases.)
What to do with it
Treat the HateIndex effect as robust within this spec; the p-value is strong and the effect size is sizable.
The Kirk term looks promising but needs either more power or a cleaner spec (e.g., lags, denoising, or orthogonalizing it from the overall index) to firm up.
The 2021–2022 dummy suggests a structural shift (policy/reporting/real trend). Keep it or try alternatives (e.g., monthly fixed effects) to see if the HateIndex effect persists.
Report the RMSE alongside predicted-vs-actual plots so readers can see typical model error size in context.
Quick “back-of-the-envelope”
If HateIndex rises by 0.5 units, predicted incidents increase by about +9–10; by 1.0 unit, about +19 (again, interpret per the index’s units).Here is another brief section from my book on Conservatism that I think is appropriate for this forum..
[i]"For most of the twentieth century, Confederate statues and names had been treated as part of the landscape in much of the country. They stood in town squares, state capitols, and on university lawns, usually without much explanation beyond “heritage.” When activists and scholars began pointing out that many of those monuments had been erected not right after the Civil War but during the Jim Crow era—as statements of white supremacy and defiance of civil-rights gains—conservatives cried foul."[/]
I was one who thought of those statues and monuments as part of the landscape. They didn't teach me in school where they ACTUALLY came from and why. When I was in school, nobody told us that most of those “heritage” statues weren’t put up right after the Civil War, but decades later during Jim Crow as a way to reassert white supremacy. I had to go dig that up on my own as an adult.
To learn that today it really depends where you live. In some districts, teachers do use the monument fights as a teachable moment and explain exactly when and why they were built. In a lot of places, though, state standards barely touch Jim Crow or the Lost Cause, and in the states that passed “anti-CRT” or “divisive concepts” laws, teachers can get in trouble if they’re too explicit about monuments as tools of white supremacy. So it’s not that there’s a single national “ban,” but there is a very real effort in some conservative states to keep kids from hearing the fuller story I quoted above.Is anti-CRT anti-truth? American history is in itself a divisive concept, full of contradictions.
Yes, conservative states, Oklahoma comes to mind. Why else be consumed with banning books and not allowing the other side of the story be properly told?As I have discovered in researching my book being anti/hiding-truth is one of the ten principles for practicing conservatives. Russell Kirk would be ashamed.
Here is another section from my upcoming book that I think we have seen in action on these forums.
"Conservatism in the United States has repeatedly treated certain hierarchies as given: white over Black, men over women, Christians over everyone else, native-born over immigrant, straight over queer, rich over poor. These hierarchies are then justified as “tradition,” “culture,” “merit,” or “the way things are.”
When movements for equality threaten those hierarchies, conservatives frequently recast themselves as victims. Anti-racist education becomes “CRT indoctrination.” Efforts to move public symbols away from Confederates or segregationists become “erasing history.” Expanding marriage rights becomes “attacking religious liberty.” The people whose status is losing its automatic privilege are said to be oppressed by the very egalitarianism that is freeing others."Then, we tell the rightwingers in unison, that we are not putting up with it. The way things are are not the way things are going to continue if we all wish to keep this society intact.
The only hierarchy is based on merit from a foundation of equal opportunity for all.
“The people whose status is losing its automatic privilege are said to be oppressed by the very egalitarianism that is freeing others."
Well saidWe have tried to make that point multiple times to those here who falsely maintain DEI is racist. That is the silliest thing I have ever heard.
That MRI was def needed.
Donald Trump
Trump calls Ilhan Omar 'garbage' and says Somalis should 'go back to where they came from'
“I don’t want them in our country. I’ll be honest with you, OK. Somebody will say, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct.’ I don’t care. I don’t want them in our country. Their country is no good for a reason. Their country stinks, and we don’t want them in our country,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting at the White House.
“I can say that about other countries, too,” he added, as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sat nearby. In a social media post Monday night, Noem said, “I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.” A source familiar with the plan said today that about 30 countries will be on that list.
Trump, however, focused most of his ire on Somalia and Omar.
“With Somalia, which is barely a country, you know, they have no, they have no anything. They just run around killing each other. There’s no structure,” he said before turning to Omar, a progressive Democrat and Somali American he’s mocked and targeted for years.
“I always watch her,” Trump said, saying she “hates everybody. And I think she’s an incompetent person. She’s a real terrible person.”
Later, Trump called her “garbage. Her friends are garbage. These aren’t people that work. These aren’t people that say, 'Let’s go, come on, let’s make this place great.' These are people that do nothing but complain.”
"You know, if they came from paradise, and they said, 'This isn't paradise,' but when they come from hell and they complain and do nothing but bitch, we don’t want them in our country. Let them go back to where they came from and fix it," he added.
Racist pig. SMHDisgusting and sick, but totally in character.
Yup. Anyone who defends this is as disgusting PoS as he is.
Racist in Chief.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DR2hMgFj … N4bnd6MA==You would expect some redneck to say such a thing, but the President of the United States????? How disgusting. If you don't feel that way, then you are as racist and unAmerican as he is.
I was going to write elsewhere that "We all know how stupid Trump is, but this takes the cake on stupidity - he is actually calling MAUGA "garbage". (I listened to a Somali Trump voter yesterday saying how disgusted he was.)How disgusting. If you don't feel that way, then you are as racist and unAmerican as he is.
I'd add, if you're silent, if you're not outraged about this, you are as racist and unAmerican (and disgusting) as he is.More than silent, they cheer and clap like seals.
Remember that he denied what he said in private (in 2018)? Now that he can be loudly and proudly racist...
Trump was boasting in his speech that he had last week “announced a permanent pause on Third World migration, including from hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia and many other countries,” when someone in the crowd yelled out the 2018 remark.
That prompted him to recall the 2018 incident. His telling hewed closely to the description offered at the time by people who were briefed on the Oval Office meeting.
“We had a meeting and I said, ‘Why is it we only take people from shithole countries,’ right? ‘Why can’t we have some people from Norway, Sweden?’” Trump told rallygoers.
“But we always take people from Somalia,” he continued. “Places that are a disaster. Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime.”
https://youtube.com/shorts/hM8jNfwt6pQ? … d0CcZxx1zM"Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia, Norway, Sweden"
You are aware that not a single one of these labels is a race of home sapiens? That all, without exception, designate political countries on earth?
That mentioning any one of them does not indicate the racism you accuse Trump of? Not even that mentioning "Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime” (true or not) is racist, that limiting the discussion to those attributes is non racist by definition?
According to the memo from his doctor, the MRI was part of a “comprehensive executive physical” done in October. The imaging was for his cardiovascular system (heart and blood vessels) and abdomen.
AP News
The doctor said the imaging showed his heart, major vessels and internal abdominal organs were “perfectly normal” with no abnormalities.
AP NewsWow Shar, great pic! You are a beauty.
Yes, our exceptional President is healthy from head to toe and doing a great job for the people! He will get us through to the next eight (8) years of J.D., and this amazing Country of ours will be back in tip-top shape too!Angie, thank you so much. That really means a lot. And right back at you, you’re a beautiful woman. I agree with everything you said about President Trump. He’s strong, focused, and working around the clock to tackle every problem put in front of him. And J.D. is the perfect partner in all of this, smart, grounded, and completely committed to helping turn this country around. I honestly feel good seeing the two of them taking this on together.
Shar
I believe Island's comment was sarcasm about Trump needing an MRI given his irrational behavior about the Somalis,
Again, it is clear you missed the context of IB's post. Read her first post, which I replied to.
"I believe Island's comment was sarcasm about Trump needing an MRI given his irrational behavior about the Somalis," ECO
"That MRI was definitely needed." IB
I felt her statement, as written, implied that his recent MRI was necessary because of his comments about Somalia and Omar. The problem I saw with her post is that Trump’s MRI was actually meant to examine his heart and abdomen, not anything related to the issue she was suggesting.
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/12/04 … -midterms/
Well, the hell with “two wrongs don’t make a right”, i say fight fire with fire.
The right wing tribunal has basically given Texas permission to retain a clear racially based gerrrymander that was ruled against by a lower court. This “Supreme Court” has not seen fit to provide an explanation for its ruling, how despotic is that?
But on the bright side is that California and Democrat blue states are all the more encouraged to go all the way with there redistricting efforts, not giving conservatives or the red so much as an inch….. Obama is right in telling old line DINOs to move aside as they fail to realize that the rightwinger is intractable and far beyond any sort of compromise.
Damnable rightwingers sitting on the court have made an exemption with Texas, it had better not interfere with blue states having the same objectives, as it might indicate that the bench overrun with hypocritical partisan red that is indicative of infection and corruption. I have always said that the rightwingers operate without so much as an ounce of integrity.I am not sure there will be a country left for Vance to be president of if Trump is successful.
"Yup. Silent MAGA." IB
Not sure you noticed, but you received two replies to your post, and I think it’s safe to say that AB and I are MAGA. Your comment started off oddly; it came across as if you were saying Trump’s MRI was needed because of his comments on Somalia and Omar. What does an MRI of the heart and abdomen have to do with anything he said? He has the right to share his views, just as we have the right to ours, and the right to debate his views if we choose.He has the right to share his views, just as we have the right to ours, and the right to debate his views if we choose.
Yes. You have the right to stay silent."He has the right to share his views, just as we have the right to ours, and the right to debate his views if we choose." Shar
"Yes. You have the right to stay silent." IB
Silence isn’t agreement; sometimes it’s simply choosing not to step into a conversation that’s designed as bait. I speak when there’s something meaningful to add, not when someone is hoping to pull me into a pile-on. I’d rather stay grounded and think for myself than react on command. I’m not sure my view would change yours, or Trump’s, so there’s no need to force it.Like I said, it is your right.
The rationalization is not necessary.It was necessary, due to your bait --- "IslandBites wrote:
Yup. Silent MAGA."
In the spirit of free speech, I have to say that was pretty childish. As I pointed out, your comment, ‘Yup. Silent MAGA.’ did get replies — it seemed you were just looking for something a bit different.Why are you and the rest of MAUGA silent on all the thousands of Trump lies? Y'all seem pretty upset when you think Biden lies. Why are you silent when Trump lies?
I will be honest, when someone throws a blatant bait statement into a chat, staying silent is often the smartest path because it cuts the cord they’re trying to pull you with. Bait only works if you bite. When you don’t respond, I deny them the reaction, the argument, perhaps the unhealthy gratification payoff they were looking for.
Silence also keeps one in control. It shows you’re not going to be dragged into a pointless back-and-forth where nothing productive will come out of it. People who use bait aren’t interested in listening or discussing; they’re interested in provoking. By not engaging, I protect my time, my peace, and my dignity.
In the end, silence says more than any comeback could: I see what you’re doing, and I’m not playing.
I respect the way Cred communicates. He’s very much a liberal, yet he always finds a productive way to talk with me as a conservative. He doesn’t use bait or sarcasm; he asks straightforward questions and actually reads what I write. He’s interested in real conversation, not insults or point-scoring. Honestly, you could learn a lot from the way Cred communicates.He also will admit when a valid point is made.
Making it appear at least as if he is considering your information.
As you say, some on here have no interest in that, their way of communication is straight out of some communist manifesto manual on how to disinform and destroy real debate.Fully agree--- I find it hard to deal with anyone who, as a rule, sees only one side of a coin to suit a narrative.
We have gone through a rough patch or two. I do try to look at the other side, but from my vantage point to acknowledge your views on so many things would require a major metamorphosis that would be next to impossible, or as a sado-masochist to accept the right’s view of everyone not amongst their constituency. I could not stand to look at my reflection in the morning mirror.
Your world view and mine have always been almost polar opposite, our views simply contradict most of the time.
To ReadMikeNow and I, silence represents acquiescence or agreement with what is said.
How is "silent MAGA" bait. She is expressing an opinion, a true one, but an opinion nevertheless. If you disagree with it, say why or ignore it, but it is not bait.
Bait is when you ask "when did you stop beating your mother". Personally, I can tell the difference between the two.
What is not bait is asking a legitimate question based on your previous words. For example, "Why are you and the rest of MAUGA silent on all the thousands of Trump lies? Y'all seem pretty upset when you think Biden lies. Why are you silent when Trump lies?" That is not bait but a fair question."How is "silent MAGA" bait. She is expressing an opinion, a true one, but an opinion nevertheless. If you disagree with it, say why or ignore it, but it is not bait." ECO
Her context was blatantly clear, "Yup. Silent MAGA." You seem to have left off a word --- a sarcastic reference. One would need to have a look at her first post. In my view, she seemed to hope someone would respond. She repeatedly baited. Posts In order
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/354 … ost4391529
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/354 … ost4391537
I will assume you left the word YUP out by accident, because it is clear you have a hard time with context. And seem to be able to skew a sentence to suit your narrative... Not really beneficial to a conversation.
It is very evident that IB was looking for MAGA to respond to her post, and posted a remark that was clearly stating.
"How disgusting. If you don't feel that way, then you are as racist and unAmerican as he is.
I'd add, if you're silent, if you're not outraged about this, you are as racist and unAmerican (and disgusting) as he is." IB
It is clear we come from different mindsets --- So at this point I will agree to disagree.Honestly, I dont care about your opinion, one way or another. So you could have stay silent (like you did anyway) and save space.
Btw, I wasnt looking for MAGA to respond. In fact, I knew MAGA would stay silent. I stand by my original opinion.
All I have to say is I'm not looking forward to the cold weather this year. My friend from Puerto Rico calls and tells me it is in the 80s there right now. I told him come January he may have a visitor.
You can say anything you want about Puerto Rico, but you have to LOVE the weather. There is also all the good food and fun stuff to do there but that is for another discussion.Yeah, Mike, I hear that you folks in the northern climes are in for some chilly weather. No offense to Island Bites, but having lived there, Hawaii is nicer.
=========
Key Differences Summarized
Consistency vs. Variety: Puerto Rico is very consistent; Hawaii has diverse microclimates.
Temperature: Hawaii is generally cooler and more comfortable; PR is consistently hotter and more humid.
Rainy Season: PR's wet period is in their summer/fall; Hawaii's is in their winter.
Elevation: Hawaii's mountains create cooler highland climates not found in PR.
Credence, it seems she is trying to use you against us - care to comment?
I repeat, and hopefully Cred see this post,
"I respect the way Cred communicates. He’s very much a liberal, yet he always finds a productive way to talk with me as a conservative. He doesn’t use bait or sarcasm; he asks straightforward questions and actually reads what I write. He’s interested in real conversation, not insults or point-scoring. Honestly, you could learn a lot from the way Cred communicates."
I must be honest and say it is very appropriate, while Cred is liberal, and has many ideologies that I don't agree with, he is, in my view, a person who offers a good, intelligent conversation. In my view, I could never put him in a group; he has opinions to share that are totally his own. And very much open-minded. So, I find your comment odd, "use you against us" What are you upset he does not march to your tune? LOL
Hey, in my view, ( and he may disagree), he dances to his own tune. Maybe I am wrong? Hopefully, Cred can offer some insight and set me straight.There is no point in that, I am a STAUNCH democrat, or lefty, if you wish. There is practically no daylight between your views and mine. Since the advent of Trump, I have gone from a single magnitude left of center to 2 magnitudes. The third magnitude being the Molotov cocktail and anarchy, I hold out hope that we don’t go there. The first magnitude is not acceptable as they have become far too cosy with Republicans and Right in the face of Trump temerity and his usurping established law and policy, relative to his predecessors, both Democrats and Republicans. I stand with the Warrens, Sanders and, for now, the Newsoms as the kinds or Democrats with the courage to right the ship.
BTW, I finished the first draft of my book. Now it is time to go back and fix all the errors and insert the sources for everything and footnote it better. It looks like it may be about 250 pages, 62,241 words.
Thank you for the observation, I don’t deserve it. I am your classic trouble maker. I just lob Molotov cocktails out there to see who I can catch within the blast radius. I use provocative articles to get blood boiling on pertinent issues, to provoke a response. Both ESO and you do the tireless research and heavy lifting that I have never really had the time to invest in in the same way.
I don’t believe that he is “baiting”, he asks pointed questions. As in a chess tournament you are placed in check, what is your move? Your choices are limited and at some point an acknowledgment would be required. We both ask the same kinds of questions, but he has a plethora of data to support a point of view as you do when you make your arguments.
While we disagree on virtually everything, I remain the gentleman at your service.
Related Discussions
- 150
Racism is Rampant Today
by Kathryn L Hill 6 months ago
There is proof everywhere you look… For instance... uh… uh….
- 36
Odd Facts About European Leaders
by Susie Lehto 7 years ago
What do Germany’s Angela Merkel, France’s Emmanuel Macron, Italy’s Paolo Gentiloni, Great Britain’s Theresa May, Holland’s Mark Rutte, Sweden’s Stefan Löfven, Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon, and European Commission’s Jean-Claude Juncker all have in common?The first is they are all leaders of...
- 103
Boston mayor excludes White people from holiday party
by Readmikenow 24 months ago
Could this be considered institutional racism? The mayor isn't upset at this racism, she is upset the white elected members found out about it."Boston's Democratic mayor has apologized for causing offense with a holiday party invitation that excluded White people.Michelle Wu drew criticism...
- 16
Do you believe that the influx of illegals to America will cause even
by Grace Marguerite Williams 11 years ago
more discrimination and prejudice towards the Latino population? According to the Daily Press dated 7/13/2014, the continuing influx of Latino immigrants, whether illegal or not, is causing tensions between Latinos and Blacks in the Deep Southern states as there is fiercer competition for...
- 18
The 10 Most Racist Countries In The World
by Grace Marguerite Williams 12 years ago
Youtube presented a video of the 10 most racist countries in the world(the video is in Spanish). These countries are as follows in descending order: Austria(10), Germany(9), Russia(8), Argentina(7), England(6), Rwanda(5), Israel(4), South Africa(3), Spain(2) and in first place, the...
- 2
What kind of people live in your neighbourhood?
by Beata Stasak 15 years ago
What kind of people live in your neighbourhood?What's going to happen to surprise us all is the dispersion of new ethnic groups all over the countries. Immigration doesn't just come to one part of a country/area/city like it did in earlier generations, it's everywhere now and it gives a chance for...