Unless you don't want to discuss with me anymore about science after knowing my views on this subject, as I experienced with an American paleontologist who became suddenly extremly cold and short at responding once he knew my disagrement with him calling the President of the largest democracy in the world Orange Hitler.
Well, I can certainly emphatize with his sentiments, especially if you also told him that he deserves your "fist in his jaw" , as you wrote here. But ultimately, I have learned to look past human matters when discussing science, so if you want to discuss scientific matters (not transgender!), discuss away. Besides, it is not as if this comes as much of a surprise to me, these aren’t the first political statements you have made after all, just don't expect me to approve of your political views any time soon, and I'll do the same
And last time I checked, Trump wasn't prime minister of India, the largest democracy in the world.
Well, I am sure I won't be convincing you, as this would be well beyond a simple, factual discussion to achieve, it would require fundamentally changing your values. Still, I find it important to not let this kind of extremism stay unchallenged, anywhere. Loud minorities can only rise with the help of a silent majority. You may feel free to conversely challenge me should you ever feel a post of mine is too leftist to leave unaddressed. But that was why you posted here in the first place, wasn't it?
Well, it actually is though, is it not? Not Hitler directly, but Höss. After implying that you would like to assault someone for inappropriate Nazi analogies. I guess we can move past that then?
If there is one thing I can appreciate at least, it is that you do not refuse to condemn Nazis, which I certainly cannot say for all right-wingers of your caliber. It is surprising you feel so offended by left-wingers, but not by right-wingers, surely you must have met your fair share of holocaust denialists in the circles you prefer to those "hysterical leftists" and "cultural marxists". Or are inappropriate claims about Nazism somehow less offensive when they come from the right? Yet I only see you complain about leftism, even defending the alt right.
As for your question, as I wrote previously, that I wouldn't feel a lot of sympathy for a war criminal does not mean I would ever support torturing them. A person who would torture them would be no better themselves. Supporting torture says a lot more about you than about the person you want to torture.
No, human rights are rights that we should not breach, or we do the exact thing you so correctly note those monsters did, give up our own humanity.
I did not make that analogy, you did. But that you did actually supports my point. So we are in agreement that someone like Snowden would deserve his human rights, I hope? Then try to make a little thought experiment, someone who committed political "crimes", in the hands of the government he committed them against, which also happens to supports the use of torture. Who controls who gets tortured? Right, ultimately Trump. Luckily for all political prisoners in the US, Trump is such a "very stable genius", right? And not at all prone to having morally "questionable" ideas on other matters (like warcrimes, already discussed) or proposing unlawful treatment (like jailing Hillary Clinton...).
Well given your unwillingness to acknowledge that what Trump has proposed is a war crime and your unveiled admiration for the man in spite of this, that is a reasonable concern.
As creature already pointed out, torture is ineffective at extracting reliable information anyway, so this is a moot point, although it seems like a bit of a favourite argument of proponents of torture.
Racism is generalizing about people on the basis of their race, which Trump most certainly did do. Exceptions notwithstanding. It is possible to be racist and still play nice with some people of different ethnicities to further one's political goal, it's the oldest trick in the book for racists who try to pass themselves off as non-racist. The sad thing is that most people are too gullible to not fall for that cheap trick.
He very clearly expresses he thinks a majority of Mexican immigrants are rapists and other criminals, he said "They are rapists, and some, I suppose, are good people". How is that not racism?
That's not some leftist fantasy, or did he ever mention the many rapists and other criminals that certainly exist among non-recent immigrant Americans? Crime statistics suggest recent immigrants are less likely to be criminals than other people in the US, not more.
If I said "Cops are not our best, they are murderers. And some I suppose are good people"
Which I'm expecting you believe leftists are saying all the time*, considering you seem to believe every other stereotype about leftists as well, you would not presume me unfairly biased against the police?
*But we're not, at least not all leftists, because most of use are not whatever the profession-related equivalent of racism is, and neither do most of us want to dismantle the state, or western civilization. Of course you will find anarchists on the left who really do say that, as you will find neonazis on the right who really do want the deathcamps back, so I think that is besides the point (but even so, anarchists would seem objectively less scary than neonazis to me, at least the former don't want to kill you because of your skin colour).
Great, so because Trump has hispanics among his supporters, he cannot be racist? And I presume, because he has female supporters, he cannot be sexist either? So I suppose (you already made an inappropriate Nazi comparison, so now by inference I assume I must be allowed one too) because there were NSDAP members of jewish and slavic descent, there's no way the Nazis could have been antisemitic or antislavic, right?
Ah, so I assume the american civil rights movement, or the south african anti-apartheid movement were actually deeply racist? Because as you put it, racial segregation is anti-racist?
The right has never understood that segregating different people leads to racism issues. The states in my country with the most rampant racism are also the ones with the lowest percentage of immigrants. Of course racial diversity can lead to racial tensions, but lack thereof can as well, especially when people who grow up in their own homogeneous bubble inevitsbly do get confronted with people of different descent at some point, which even you have to accept is not preventable.
Not true, there are enough examples of generally "leftist" parties with anti-immigration agendas, look no further than Italy. And didn't you yourself note on Obama's anti-immigration plans? The entire left-right scheme has its limitations, but at the very least, there is an entire list of political stances typical for left and right wing politics that are taken into account when identifying leftists and rightists.
Now of course, smelling communist conspiracies everywhere and playing the victim role to the evil leftist-controlled state and media are certainly among the traits typical of the far-right.
So, I assume you are talking about legalizing child-molestation, not legalizing pedophilia, which are different things. But at any rate, if you take that as an example of the most extreme view held on the left (which it arguably isn't, Stalin's cleansing operations are) then this whole point is meaningless, I don't think I need to tell you about the most extreme views held on the right which you would logically have to contrast with those of the extreme left, because you already posted them, and other examples are making news headlines all the time. I must say an ideology that in this day and age still regularly drives people to commit mass murder scares me a tad bit more than one that sometimes lights a few cars on fire and supports the individual freedom to choose one's gender identity. There have been times where the left wing was more dangerous than that, but then, you know what the right wing used to look like if we go back in time...
Or are we only differentiating between people with different views on the right, whereas all "leftists" are the same, and automatically judged by what the worst people on that side propose or do? So the alt-right isn't homogeneous, not all brainless neonazis, but the entire left wing, which even you yourself have accepted (or complained) includes a disproportionate number of highly educated, unusually intelligent people (namely many scientists), is a totally undifferentiated, "hysterical", PC-obsessed bunch of pedophiles? I'm laughing my ass off, you cannot even get different climate movements to agree on their methods, much less different leftists in general (a "leftist" who is fine with letting refugees drown in the mediterranean, for example, would be just as much my adversary as a "rightist" from the same government, a leftist child molester just as much as a rightist torturer).
Well, a little late for that now, but I can enjoy a political discussion too from time to time, even if it is sometimes unsettling what kind of views you get confronted by (which only makes it even more important). But I hope you don't believe this is my first political discussion either. If you think the scientific community really is a homogeneous leftist bubble, I really hate to disappoint you on that. But I suppose you haven't really given the "hysterical leftist students" much of a chance to see whether they are even all leftists, or what views they really have.
What do you even mean by "balkanic situations", and what makes you so sure the left will cause them?
That sounds like about as good an argument as "I'm afraid right nationalists will cause World War III", and that fear would be a lot more justified, considering mostly moderate leftists (or at least people who you probably consider as leftists) were the ones set the policies that led to an unprecedented era of peace, prosperity and tolerance we have had in in Europe during the last 70 years.
