No one cares about white supremacists feelings cause the majority have decided that they are terrible people. It’s the same reason no one cares about the feelings of people who like pineapple on pizza. Everyone else has looked at the evidence and decided they are wrong.

This may not be the place to get into this, but ummmmm.....I like pineapple on pizza.

I didn't think I would and, who are we kidding, it sounds awful, but it really is good. It's one of those things you just have to throw caution to the wind and try it, despite what common sense tells you.

At least now I know I don’t have to care about your feelings.

Get in line. :P

I was so depressed I decided to jump off the top of my apartment building. They sent up a priest. He said "On your mark..."

OK, but who decides who is or isn't a "white supremacist", and is their criteria objective?

Is anyone who questions immigration policies a "white supremacist"?

You just didnt get it.
In the post that you replied to, it is stated clearly that "everyone else has looked at the evidence and decided you are wrong". Not only that, but nobody cares about your feelings either. Really sorry for you mate, and even if i liked pineapple on pizza i wouldnt admit it, because i dont want people not caring about my feelings.

Apparently yes, just how anyone questioning the insane level of affirmative action is automatically guilty of misogyny and/or racism, and just how everyone that is against p.c. is also automatically a white supremacist, among other bad things.
Also how all heterosexual men are guilty of indulging in patriarchal rape culture. Just a little example that illustrates the pathology of their thinking: http://endrapeoncampus.org/eroc-blog/2017/4/28/rape-culture-is-in-our-language

Thats the world we live in right now, its a little bit crazy, but like all crazy things, it will pass, insanity is not stable and cant last.
The only sad part is that this mob will most likely not fall before dismantling democracy and freedom of speech completely.

P.S. if you refered to what firstpastthe post said, i believe he was joking, doubt he was being serious.

I think it's more than a little crazy. We've been programmed to hate each other, and the end result is the disintegration of our societies. How quickly people forget that the tables are constantly being turned in the game of politics, and that "national security" and "public safety" have nothing to do with national security and public safety. These terms are the hallmark of security states that seek absolute control over people who have been socialized to be disinterested and complacent, and we are well into the endgame.

I'd say a better example is Sarah Jeung, who posted clearly racist and offensive Tweets, yet her employer stood up for her. And Linko? Did absolutely nothing wrong in comparison and got thrown under the bus.

"Dumbass f***ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants" [I censored this - it was not originally]
"Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins"
"#CancelWhitePeople"
and dozens more...

These were brought to the New York Times attention, and they backed her up, no warning, nothing. Yet Linko, with two Tweets that are not even offensive gets the axe.

The problem is that outright, the very definition of "hate speech" is being condoned and not just against white supremacists, but if one of just white or male. Or in the case of people like Louis Farrakhan, if one is Jewish. Yet a small pissant group of people manufacture a controversy, and it's somehow contrived to be some sort of "hate crime" and leads to an immediate firing.

There is clearly a double standard. And in the case of Sarah Jeung, you can't even pretend she isn't a face of the New York Times being an opinion writer and part of the staff. And you cannot argue without being totally insane that her quotes weren't the clear definition of "hate speech" on top of the fact she made these sort of posts with frequent regularity.

You are supposed to fight for survival.
And why do you think he is wrong? After all you think that adressing someone with a different pronoun means hurting that person.
Good point. Now tell me, why SJW - a term that also have dictionary definition and everything, but people constantly tell that SJWs don't exist?

Also, apparently, porn is "hate speech" too.

Good luck to any white man that tries using the New York Times' defense of her.

https://twitter.com/NYTimesPR/status/1025048766825549830

The case of Sarah Jeong should better be compared to the case of Quinn Norton https://www.wired.com/story/the-ny-times-fires-tech-writer-quinn-norton-and-its-complicated/
because both cases involve the same publication, New York Times, and the bias and foul play are blatant.

In Sarah Jeung's "defense", she doesn't appear to have any qualms about throwing Chinese women under the bus. o.O

https://medium.com/@therealsexycyborg/shenzhen-tech-girl-naomi-wu-my-experience-with-sarah-jeong-jason-koebler-and-vice-magazine-3f4a32fda9b5

I'm still trying to figure out how this turned into white supremacy.

But anyway, depends on what you mean by "get in trouble". What I'm talking about is that if you know a group has a history of doxing and / or whatnot when given the chance - against those who raise their ire, whether or not it was intended - then it stands to reason they would do it again. So just steer clear, especially if you're a store. And if one doesn't steer clear and gets targeted, then nobody should be surprised that the 'bad guys' do what they've been doing all along to others. I never said it was okay; just that it was expected that they could get outraged (phony or not) again.

That's it. Nothing more to it. And it doesn't have to be white supremacists.

No idea. Someone else brought it up, As mentioned, I'm still trying to figure out how white supremacy applies to what I had written earlier, as quoted by PanzerFranzz. Maybe there's some running gag going, and I missed it since I had bowed out a few days back?

On the contrary, you are the one confusing sex and gender. My contention with the issue is entirely based on your attempt to subvert reality with language. I am on board with treating people well and, out of respect(not force) calling people what they want to be called. That doesn't mean that they have actually physically changed, however. To fully get into it would require a deep dive into what reality is and what truth is, which would take a very long time. In short, if someone is physically a male, it's not bigoted for me to assume that they are male. If they then inform me after that they identify as something else, I can accept that; at that point if I continue to insist that they are male it could be considered hateful. But that would just mean I see them as someone who is physically a male who identifies as female, not literally a female; at least until they have transitioned. You're trying to suggest that what I can see isn't necessarily real by default, trying to get me and others to accept that our experience of reality is wrong, presumably so you can then try to push your own insistence of reality on to us.

I certainly never called for censorship and the suppression of scientific ideas on campus.