I believe it. The most extraordinary evidence of this is the gay rights movement. They've adopted "Love Wins" as their slogan, but then refuse to even interact with people who may not support them (i.e: Mike Pence). Clearly, they don't believe their own propaganda.
You have made up two stereotypes at once. First that all gay people adopt the slogan "love wins", then that no gay people will interact with Mike Pence. Neither is correct. Further it is so obviously insane that you would cry hypocrisy at people who are loathe to interact with someone who doesn't believe they have the same rights as other human beings, and who has the power to actually make that happen, that you should be ashamed of yourself, for not even being a horrible person in a subtle way.
Second on this.
One of the ways that people tend to construct arguments against a group (from my experience in the midwestern US) is to show contradiction in the other side's argument. This would be a legitimate argument if done fairly, but it seems people always take an unfair route by synthesizing across a group using two opposing inner-sects.
My father is often guilty of this, he will talk about "liberals" and I have to remind him that it's more than a little ridiculous to merge an entire political party (in the US, basically) into one viewpoint, treating a one-off statement by a high-schooler with the same value as the running candidate.
“Love wins” is not a slogan of the gay right movement. A quick search turned up a bunch of Christian literature. So stop making up arguments.
Mike Pence wants to allow parents to send their children to “conversion therapy”, and your example of hurtful actions is not meeting with him?
I’m happy to meet with him any time that he’s free, but I can’t guarantee that he’ll enjoy it.
And, to quote a recent comment of yours, “Is this relevant to the linked article at all or are you just finding any excuse available to push your politics?”
One example is the idea that the gender imbalance in tech could be caused by population-level differences between the genders. This is what Damore was arguing for and got fired for.
All of these things have only minor impact on the average citizen. Trump's tax cuts have already done way more for the average tech worker than anything Hillary was proposing.
No, he isn't. Democrats said the same thing about Bush, and they're saying the same thing about Pence. Anybody with an R next to their name would get the same backlash if they were president.
I can’t speak for everyone, but this isn’t true at all for me. I have disagreed with large chunks of the policies of every president in my lifetime, and voted for presidents of both parties. I’ve never doubted that any of them loved this country and took their oath of office seriously.
I have zero faith that our current president cares about anything beyond himself and his image. Zero.
And I’m not alone. A shocking number of conservative writers and thinkers believe Trump represents a fundamental threat to democracy. Behind closed doors, even many of his ardent public supporters have no respect or faith in him.
I didn't agree with Bush's economic policy, but I didn't think he was a particularly dangerous politician and I generally supported him in the years after 9/11. Then we invaded Iraq based on false pretenses and with no plan for what to do in the days following the fall of the government. It was deceitful, disgusting and incompetent and a waste of lives and resources. So I decided Bush is a POS. It wasn't a predetermined partisan opinion. It was based on how things actually unfolded.
I still think that in terms of damage done Nixon was the worst we've had and Bush comes in second. Trump is dangerous in my opinion, but nothing so far comes close to what Bush did. It's strange that you make dislike of Bush sound unreasonable. It's perfectly reasonable.
How do you define what is and isn't a loot box? Elements of chance are a fact of life. If you remove them from games, video games will be indistinguishable from movies.
> I remember reading in a similar article that many "classical-liberal" types think that the wage-gap between man and woman may be caused by the fact that woman are naturally less competitive. Meaning that they are less careerist. This is of course a failure of meritocracy, in the same way that charisma often trumps skill at a job (which is the big problem for anti social men).
How is this a failure of the meritocracy? To me, this is the meritocracy working correctly and succeeding. A competitive person will naturally work harder to improve their skills because they have a greater desire to be the best. In a true meritocracy, you'd expect them to outperform less competitive people.
