You've never been in that situation. I can tell. The kid was more scared than I was. I was careless, not paying enough attention in an empty parking garage late at night. My intent was to keep him as calm as possible. Your perspective, given your macho proclivity, would be to think exactly what you thought. You are completely wrong. You make me laugh. I was right about you. No surprise there.
Would you support putting trump people in concentration camps?
- Thread starter Underdog
- Start date
You've never been in that situation. I can tell. The kid was more scared than I was. I was careless, not paying enough attention in an empty parking garage late at night. My intent was to keep him as calm as possible. Your perspective, given your macho proclivity, would be to think exactly what you thought. You are completely wrong. You make me laugh. I was right about you. No surprise there.
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
Sir, it's not all about Republicans and Democrats.
There is a 3rd factor that is growing like a cancer and that is this Right Wing Extremist White Supremacist movement that hides behind the skirt of the Republican Party and are trying to start a race war or civil war, create anarchy, and kill Democracy. They intend to assassinate both Republican and Democrat leaders, and go door-to-door executing minorities and other liberals, and attempt to overthrow the Federal Government in a coup attempt. Many of them surfaced Wednesday in the terrorist attack on the Capitol Building.
Those people are not Republicans, but they have matastasized and have saturated the Republican Party and are now planning terrorist attacks across the nation.
These well organized Domestic Terrorist organizations have just been identified as American's enemy #1!
Until you Republicans can take your party back and denounce these terrorist organizations, stop funding them, stop arming them, and stop defending them, the Republican Party is doomed for all practical purposes.
The Republicans cannot survive if they are in bed with America's #1 enemy and Homeland Security's highest security threat!
Last edited:
True, I have never been looked at as a bitch who was an easy target, even all alone in empty parking lots. they tend to look for easy marks. you had bitch written all over you.
did you piss yourself to show him you were no threat? I bet you did.
thats media propaganda. the white nationalists are outliers just like lw extremists are. the media plays it up, you are targeted with confirmation bias articles and media telling you this.
can you link to going door to door executing minorities? I think when you cant prove this claim, you will see my first sentence is true.
I am not a republican, not my problem either way. I find both parties, eager to accept fascism if it helps their power.
I don't get how you can think the BLM/ANTIFA protests were peaceful, but this was a terrorist attack.
BattleofHodow
New member
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
No Sir, the media doesn't have anything to do with it.
I was just quoting what the FBI and our Intelligence community are telling us.
The people that caused the riot and terrorism Wednesday, are the same outfits that have disrupted the BLM protests and turned them into riots, lootings, break-ins, and burning of buildings. We don't want them, and you don't want them. You just need to know who your true enemies are. It is not the Democrats, BLM, or Liberals. And our enemies are not Republicans.
Tune in!
Elections of the future are going to come down to two distinct groups- THOSE WHO ARE FIGHTING TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY- AND THOSE WHO ARE FIGHTING TO END IT! CHOOSE YOUR SIDE WISELY.
The Donald Trump era is over, and you better leave his lies, distractions, and conspiracy theories behind if you are ever going to win elections again.
You've been informed now!
Don't continue to be a part of the laughing stock here, I'm serious! Drop the crap SIR. DO it today!
Last edited:
Mr.Badguy
Super lefty
What they need is like a detox/rehab place. No internet or cable news from EITHER SIDE, just some fun in the sun, a little physical activity maybe some puzzles.
When YouTube videos and social media takes over your life, it's easy to become obsessed with conspiracy theories.
When YouTube videos and social media takes over your life, it's easy to become obsessed with conspiracy theories.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
eww, scary. go fuck yourself.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
deep state did storm the capital, you're finally right.
BattleofHodow
New member
So destroying your own culture is righteous!?
https://dr-wendihealth.com/2020/01/05/the-love-hormone-and-mental-health/
Fun Fact: Psychopaths, sociopaths, and people with severe autism produce significantly less oxytocin or have alterations in their oxytocin receptors compared to other humans.
https://time.com/49399/oxytocin-racism-study/
DRUGSTHE 'LOVE HORMONE' CAN MAKE YOU HATE: STUDY
The 'Love Hormone' Can Make You Hate: Study
Ecstasy pills.
Ecstasy pills. DEA/Reuters
BY MICHELLE ARROUAS
APRIL 4, 2014 1:35 AM EDT
Corrected: April 5.
The oxytocin hormone is often described as the “love hormone” or “cuddling chemical,” but there might be a darker side to it. Not only does it make you feel all loved-up and happy, but also contribute to intolerance and violence, a 2011 study suggests.
In the study, professor of psychology at the University of Amsterdam Carsten de Dreu found that the loved-up feeling you get when flooded with oxytocin — which is also released by the popular party drug Molly, also known as Ecstasy or MDMA — only extends to your “in-group.”
Oxytocin, he wrote, “motivates in-group favoritism” and “derogation” of outsiders. According to the study, oxytocin had “a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence.”
According to a Vice report published this week, the study’s participants — all Dutch males — were told that they had to choose five persons out of six that would gain access to a life-saving lifeboat.
The men on oxytocin were more likely to deny men with Muslim or German-sounding names access and save the men with Dutch names, while the men who were given a placebo didn’t pay attention to the origin of the names.
ADVERTISING
Correction: The original story has been updated to reflect that the study examined the effects oxytocin on behavior, not MDMA, and was published in
https://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262
Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism
Carsten K. W. De Dreu, Lindred L. Greer, Gerben A. Van Kleef, Shaul Shalvi, and Michel J. J. Handgraaf
PNAS January 25, 2011 108 (4) 1262-1266; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1015316108
Edited by Douglas S. Massey, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved December 21, 2010 (received for review October 12, 2010)
Article Figures & SI Info & Metrics PDF
Abstract
Human ethnocentrism—the tendency to view one's group as centrally important and superior to other groups—creates intergroup bias that fuels prejudice, xenophobia, and intergroup violence. Grounded in the idea that ethnocentrism also facilitates within-group trust, cooperation, and coordination, we conjecture that ethnocentrism may be modulated by brain oxytocin, a peptide shown to promote cooperation among in-group members. In double-blind, placebo-controlled designs, males self-administered oxytocin or placebo and privately performed computer-guided tasks to gauge different manifestations of ethnocentric in-group favoritism as well as out-group derogation. Experiments 1 and 2 used the Implicit Association Test to assess in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. Experiment 3 used the infrahumanization task to assess the extent to which humans ascribe secondary, uniquely human emotions to their in-group and to an out-group. Experiments 4 and 5 confronted participants with the option to save the life of a larger collective by sacrificing one individual, nominated as in-group or as out-group. Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation. These findings call into question the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate “love drug” or “cuddle chemical” and suggest that oxytocin has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence.
hormonessocial discriminationevolutionmoral dilemmasendocrinology
To survive and prosper, individuals need groups whose members contribute information and resources. Because contributing resources and information makes oneself vulnerable to exploitation by others, group members need to know who to trust or to distrust, who can be expected to also contribute to the group and to reciprocate cooperation, and who may abuse in-group generosity and free-ride on others (1). A key mechanism facilitating such in-group cooperation is ethnocentrism, the tendency to view one's own group as centrally important and as superior to other groups. Ethnocentrism manifests itself in positive valuation of (members of) one's in-group. Such in-group favoritism signals loyalty and positive commitment to the group, thus rendering the ethnocentric individual a reliable and trustworthy partner. Ethnocentrism may also show up in negative valuation of (members of) out-groups. Such out-group derogation signals to in-group members who should be excluded from in-group resources and exchanges, and reduces the probability that in-group resources are inadvertently extended to out-groups (1–6).
If in-group favoritism and out-group derogation have adaptive value and sustain in-group functioning, coordination, and cooperation, it follows that (i) throughout evolution those individuals who displayed in-group favoritism and out-group derogation and who detected such tendencies in others were more likely to spread than individuals lacking these capacities (5–8) and (ii) the human brain may have evolved to sustain ethnocentrism through yet-unknown neurobiological systems. Here we conjecture that human ethnocentrism may be motivated by brain oxytocin, a peptide that is produced in the hypothalamus and released into the bloodstream from axon terminals and into the brain from dendrites of hypothalamic neurons (9). Functioning as both a neurotransmitter and a hormone, oxytocin's targets are widespread and include the hippocampus and the amygdala (10–12). Oxytocin interacts with dopaminergic, reward-processing circuits in the nucleus accumbens shell and in the ventral tegmental area (13) and exerts anxiolytic effects via direct activation of oxytocin receptors expressed in serotonergic neurons of the raphe nuclei (14, 15). Indeed, intranasal administration of oxytocin in humans promotes trust and cooperation (11, 16–19), although such effects may be limited to in-group members and do not extend toward out-groups (16, 17). For example, studies on animal cognition show that male rodents engineered to lack forebrain oxytocin receptors recognized but no longer discriminated between familiar (in-group) and novel (out-group) stimulus females (20, 21). If brain oxytocin indeed sustains and motivates human ethnocentrism at the neurobiological level, we should find that humans given oxytocin show more in-group favoritism than those given placebo.
Support for the idea that oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism would qualify work showing that oxytocin associates with (indiscriminate) social approach (22, 23), trust, benevolence, and prosociality (24). However, because in-group loyalty and cooperative motivation may also manifest themselves in out-group derogation (1–4, 16), it cannot be excluded that oxytocin also motivates out-group derogation. Evidence for this possibility would be consistent with work showing that oxytocin in non-human mammals promotes territoriality and aggression toward intruders (25–27) and with studies showing that humans given oxytocin display more schadenfreude when interpersonal competition is lost and more gloating when interpersonal competition is won (28).
In-group favoritism and out-group derogation conspire to create intergroup bias: the unfair response toward another group that devalues or disadvantages the other group and its members by valuing or privileging members of one's in-group (29). Here we predicted that (i) oxytocin creates such intergroup bias because (ii) oxytocin promotes in-group favoritism and, possibly, (iii) out-group derogation. These hypotheses were tested in five experiments, all using double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled between-subjects designs (Materials and Methods). Indigenous Dutch males sat in individual cubicles, and were guaranteed anonymity. Following established practice (10, 16, 18), they self-administered intranasally 24 IU of oxytocin or placebo. After 40 min, they received computer instructions for the experimental tasks that enabled independent assessments of in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. We exposed our indigenous Dutch males to images of in-group targets (Dutch males) and one of two natural but distinct out-group targets: immigrants from Middle Eastern descent (henceforth “Arabs”; experiments 1, 3, and 4) and German citizens (henceforth “Germans”; experiments 2 and 5) (refs. 30–34; Materials and Methods).
Experiments 1 and 2
Experiments 1 (n = 63) and 2 (n = 70) used the Implicit Association Test (IAT), an established technique to assess implicit social valuation (35–37). The IAT asks participants to categorize positive words/in-group names with one key and negative words/out-group names with one key. In a different block, they are then asked to categorize positive words/out-group names with one key and negative words/in-group names with the other key. Four trial blocks are obtained by crossing words (positive/negative valence) and name (in-group/out-group) (35–37). In-group favoritism is computed by subtracting latencies corrected for SD across within-block trials for out-group/positive blocks from the in-group/positive blocks. Thus, a negative IAT score indicates that in-group/positive associations are faster than out-group/positive associations. The same procedure applies to computing an index of out-group negativity (with a positive IAT score indicating out-group derogation). This computation allows one to test whether oxytocin promotes (i) in-group favoritism and (ii) out-group derogation (see Materials and Methods for an alternative computation with identical conclusions).
In-group favoritism and out-group derogation were submitted to a 2 (treatment: placebo/oxytocin) × 2 (target: in-group/out-group) ANOVA with the first factor between subjects. In experiment 1 (with Arabs as out-group), effects were found for target, F(1, 61) = 155.61, P < 0.001, and target × treatment, F(1, 61) = 6.95, P < 0.011 (Fig. 1A). Compared with placebo, oxytocin increased in-group favoritism, F(1, 61) = 5.51, P < 0.022, and out-group derogation, F(1, 61) = 4.95, P < 0.030. Experiment 2 (with Germans as out-group) replicated these effects for target, F(1, 68) = 323.29, P < 0.001, and target × treatment, F(1, 68) = 5.08, P < 0.027 (Fig. 1B). Compared with placebo, oxytocin increased in-group favoritism, F(1, 68) = 4.50, P < 0.038; the oxytocin-driven increase in out-group derogation just fell short of statistical significance, F(1, 68) = 3.46, P < 0.067. Thus, there is support for the hypothesis that (i) oxytocin creates intergroup bias because (ii) oxytocin promotes in-group favoritism. Mixed support was obtained for the hypothesis (iii) that oxytocin promotes out-group derogation.
Fig. 1.
Download figure Open in new tab Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.
Oxytocin promotes implicit in-group regard and out-group disregard (displayed ± SE). Negative scores indicate that in-group associations are faster; positive scores indicate that out-group associations are faster. (A) Results for experiment 1 with Arabs as out-group. (B) Results for experiment 2 with Germans as out-group.
Experiment 3
In additional to social valuation, ethnocentrism manifests itself in infrahumanization—the tendency to associate in-group members more than out-group members with secondary emotions that are commonly seen as uniquely human (e.g., delight, embarrassment; as opposed to primary emotions like joy and sadness) (38–41). Such intergroup bias may be the result of an increased tendency to associate uniquely human, secondary emotions with the in-group (in-group favoritism) with a reduced tendency to associate such secondary emotions with the out-group (out-group derogation), or both. In experiment 3, 66 Dutch males given oxytocin or placebo rated whether a target individual would be able to experience six secondary emotions and six primary emotions (1 = not at all to 5 = very much). Two blocks were created, one in which emotions were rated for a typical NEDERLANDER (Dutch) and one in which these emotions were rated for a typical MOSLIM (Muslim). Blocks were presented in random order, and within blocks emotions were randomized. Each block included three negative primary emotions (fear, exhaustion, and pain), three negative secondary emotions (embarrassment, contempt, and humiliation), three positive primary emotions (affection, pleasure, and attraction), and three positive secondary emotions (admiration, hope, and surprise) (38). Within each set of three (positive/negative valence × secondary/primary emotion), ratings were averaged (interitem reliabilities 0.75 < α < 0.84).
Preliminary analyses revealed no effects for the valence factor, all F(1, 64) < 1.02, P > 0.450, or for the order in which blocks were presented, all F(1, 64) < 1, P > 0.782. The lack of order effects indicates that possible effects of oxytocin on in-group favoritism and out-group derogation emerge regardless of the salience of an intergroup comparison, an issue we return to in Discussion. Final analyses collapsed across valence and order, resulting in a 2 (emotion type: primary vs. secondary) × 2 (target: in-group vs. out-group) × 2 (treatment: oxytocin vs. placebo) mixed-model ANOVA with the first two factors within subjects and the last factor between subjects. This analysis revealed effects for emotion, F(1, 64) = 88.44, P < 0.001; target, F(1, 64) = 135.97, P < 0.001; emotion × target, F(1, 64) = 132.59, P < 0.001; and emotion × target × treatment, F(1, 64) = 12.92, P < 0.001. For primary emotions, treatment and target effects were not significant, F < 1, P > 0.451 (overall M = 4.276, SD = 0.634). For secondary emotions, however, there were effects for target, F(1, 64) = 340.45, P < 0.001, and for the treatment × target interaction, F(1, 64) = 7.95, P < 0.006 (Fig. 2). Oxytocin created intergroup bias: compared with placebo, males given oxytocin associated secondary emotions more with their in-group than with the out-group, F(1, 64) = 4.73, P < 0.034. Follow-up analyses showed that this effect of oxytocin on intergroup bias was driven by in-group favoritism: associations between secondary emotions and in-group targets were stronger when participants received oxytocin rather than placebo, F(1, 64) = 4.654, P < 0.035. Treatment did not influence the extent to which out-group targets were associated with secondary emotions, F(1, 64) = 1.319, P < 0.225. Experiment 3 thus supports the hypothesis that (i) oxytocin creates intergroup bias because (ii) oxytocin promotes in-group favoritism. There was no support for the hypothesis that (iii) oxytocin promotes out-group derogation.
Fig. 2.
Download figure Open in new tab Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.
Oxytocin strengthens the association between uniquely human emotion words and in-group targets, but not out-group targets. Results range from very weak (1) to very strong (5) (displayed ± SE).
Experiments 4 and 5
Although the tasks used in experiments 1–3 assessed ethnocentric attitudes, experiments 4–5 considered intergroup bias in the way people treat in-group versus out-group members. Both experiments used the Moral Choice Dilemma Task (42, 43), which presents participants with a series of choice dilemmas. A famous example is that of a trolley running toward five people, who will be killed if nothing is done. Hitting a switch will divert the trolley to another track, where it will kill only one person. Thus, whatever one decides is, in a sense, wrong (it kills one or more human beings), but, at the same time, given the unattractiveness of the alternatives and the forced choice, each decision is defensible. Here we used five such dilemmas (e.g., the trolley dilemma, a case of blowing up a person who was stuck in a hole in a cave in order for five other people to escape, a case of denying a person access to a lifeboat to prevent the boat from sinking), and intermixed these dilemmas with five non-moral judgment problems (e.g., taking a coastal route or a route through the mountains, choosing a coffee or milkshake) (42, 44). Participants were randomly assigned to either the in-group target condition or the out-group target condition. In the in-group target condition, the target person was referred to by a typical Dutch male name (e.g., Dirk, Peter; different names were used across trials); in the out-group target condition, the target person had an Arab name (e.g., Ahmed, Youssef; different names were used across trials); or, in experiment 5, a German name (e.g., Markus, Helmut) was used. In all conditions, the collective saved by sacrificing the target was nameless and the stories were neutral as to the (in-group or out-group) identity of the collective. For instance, in the trolley dilemma, hitting the switch would mean that Maarten (Dutch name) or, in the out-group target condition, Mohammed (Arab name) would be killed, and five other unnamed people would live. The 10 choice problems (five moral, five control) were presented in random order. For each choice problem, participants indicated their decision (0 = no, 1 = yes). Intergroup bias shows up in a greater tendency to sacrifice out-group rather than in-group members (43) because of in-group favoritism (decreased willingness to sacrifice in-group targets), out-group derogation (increased readiness to sacrifice out-group targets), or both.
The number of “sacrifice” responses (range 0–5) and “yes” responses (0–5 for the control choices) in experiment 4 (n = 71) were submitted to a 2 (placebo/oxytocin) × 2 (in-group/out-group target) × 2 (sacrifice/control choice) ANOVA with the last factor within subjects. Results showed effects for target, F(1, 67) = 8.14, P < 0.006; choice type, F(1, 67) = 53.40, P < 0.001; target × choice type, F(1, 67) = 6.78, P < 0.011; and target × choice type × treatment, F(1, 67) = 4.80, P < 0.032. Target or treatment did not influence control choices, all F(1, 67) < 1.98, P > 0.17. For sacrifice choices, however, the predicted target × treatment interaction was significant, F(1, 67) = 12.08, P < 0.001 (Fig. 3A). Oxytocin promoted intergroup bias: Under oxytocin, males were more likely to sacrifice out-group targets than in-group targets [F(1, 68) = 17.27, P < 0.001]; under placebo, this tendency was not significant [F(1, 68) = 1.17, P < 0.284]. This overall intergroup bias was driven by in-group favoritism: Compared with placebo, oxytocin reduced the sacrifice of in-group targets, F(1, 68) = 4.11, P < 0.047. It was not driven by out-group derogation, in that treatment did not influence the readiness to sacrifice out-group targets, F(1, 68) = 1.37, P < 0.247. Experiment 5 (n = 77) replicated these effects for choice type, F(1, 73) = 46.86, P < 0.001; target × choice type, F(1, 73) = 2.76, P < 0.10; and target × choice type × treatment, F(1, 73) = 4.43, P < 0.039 with German instead of Arab names. Target or treatment did not influence control choices, all F(1, 73) < 1.39, P > 0.21. For sacrifice choices, the target × treatment interaction was significant, F(1, 73) = 9.33, P < 0.003 (Fig. 3B). Again, oxytocin created intergroup bias: Under oxytocin, males were more likely to sacrifice out-group targets than in-group targets [F(1, 74) = 9.33, P < 0.003]; under placebo, this tendency was not significant [F(1, 74) = 0.16, P < 0.694]. This overall intergroup bias was driven by in-group favoritism: Compared with placebo, oxytocin reduced the sacrifice of in-group targets, F(1, 74) = 4.95, P < 0.029. It was not because of out-group derogation, in that treatment did not increase the readiness to sacrifice out-group targets, F(1, 74) = 1.36, P < 0.248. Together, these results provide additional support for the hypothesis that (i) oxytocin creates intergroup bias because (ii) oxytocin promotes in-group favoritism. There was no support for the hypothesis that (iii) oxytocin promotes out-group derogation.
Fig. 3.
Download figure Open in new tab Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.
Oxytocin reduces the willingness to sacrifice in-group targets to save a larger collective but not the readiness to sacrifice out-group targets. Results range from 0 to 5 (displayed ± SE). (A) Results for experiment 4 with Arabs as out-group. (B) Results for experiment 5 with Germans as out-group.
Discussion
Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because it motivates in-group favoritism and, in some cases, out-group derogation. These findings provide evidence for the idea that neurobiological mechanisms in general, and oxytocinergic systems in particular, evolved to sustain and facilitate within-group coordination and cooperation. This notion is further supported by the fact that oxytocin modulated in-group favoritism across different measures and generalizes across the two natural out-groups studied here. There are notable differences in the characteristics of and stereotypic perceptions vis-à-vis out-groups of Arab immigrants and Germans (refs. 30–33; Materials and Methods). However, across experiments, effects for oxytocin on in-group favoritism were strikingly similar. It thus seems that oxytocin's effects on in-group favoritism are relatively immune to cultural norms, exposure, between-group differences in socio-economic status, and the like.
Although results provided consistent support for the hypothesis that oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism, limited support was found for the hypothesis that oxytocin drives out-group derogation. Evidence was obtained in experiment 1, and to a lesser extent in experiment 2, where we gauged ethnocentrism through implicit measures that tap into biases operating outside of volitional control (45). This finding resonates with work showing that testosterone in humans reduces automatic fear responses but not volitionally controlled, self-reports of anxiety (46). Alternatively, it may be that intergroup bias is driven more by in-group favoritism and that out-group derogation plays a relatively minor role. In-groups are psychologically primary—people live in them and, sometimes, for them (47)—and in-group favoritism has strong adaptive value and facilitates within-group coordination and survival. Allport (47) already conjectured that there is good reason to believe that the in-group love–prejudice effect is far more basic to human life than is the out-group hate–prejudice effect, and research on human ethnocentrism supported this positive–negative asymmetry of social discrimination (29, 48). Current findings on the role of oxytocin fit this positive–negative asymmetry, showing that oxytocin creates intergroup bias primarily because it motivates in-group favoritism
https://medium.com/swlh/oxytocin-is-not-always-kind-it-can-evoke-disgust-3792716b3457
Oxytocin Is Not Always Kind: It Can Evoke Disgust
It “worsen Us/Them dichotomies,” human studies reveal.
Shin Jie Yong
Shin Jie Yong
Follow
Jun 12, 2020 · 3 min read
Oxytocin, the so-called love hormone, mediates bonding such as during mother-infant or human-dog interactions. It turns the brain into a pro-social mode by tuning down the amygdala (fear and disgust centre) and exciting the dorsal striatum (trust and reward centre). “It makes people more trusting, forgiving, empathic and charitable,” Robert Sapolsky, a multi-award-winning author and professor of biology, neurology, neurological sciences, and, by courtesy, neurosurgery, wrote in a 2018 review. “It improves the accuracy of reading people’s emotions.”
Probing further, scientists discovered the pro-social effects of oxytocin only apply if the person is one of us — or an in-group member. If the person is one of them — or an out-group member — oxytocin becomes anti-social. “In such settings, the [oxytocin] hormone decreases trust, and enhances envy and gloating for the successes and failures, respectively, of the out-group member,”
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
It's a deep state that is being funded by RIGHT WING FUNDING ORGANIZATIONS- INCLUDING THE NRA!
If you are a True Republican, you need to disassociate yourself and your party with them.
And you may also want to censure your Republican Congressmen and women who are marching in lock step with them.
I support locating the millions of violent extremists that irresponsible Republican media lies and hate speech has created and reprogramming them through anger management therapy and counseling.
They quite literally suffer from a fact void worldview in the way a religious (or irreligious) cult does.
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE TO COUNTERACT THE LYING OF THE RIGHT THAT DOES NOT EXIST ON THE LEFT.
They quite literally suffer from a fact void worldview in the way a religious (or irreligious) cult does.
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE TO COUNTERACT THE LYING OF THE RIGHT THAT DOES NOT EXIST ON THE LEFT.
Conveniently, they were posing for the many cameras that were running. No masks. Lock them up.
The insurrectionists should go to trial and be treated like any other potential criminals. They were trying to overthrow the government and likely wanted to kill some politicians. They will be in jail for a long time if they are found guilty. Their crimes are on video.
They also have their mental meanderings on the net. There are many friends and family that can testify. One guy who was busting up the capitol was fingered by his ex-wife.
They also have their mental meanderings on the net. There are many friends and family that can testify. One guy who was busting up the capitol was fingered by his ex-wife.
have you seen:
https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224
You seem like you may be rational in a sea of irrationality.
but your teetering my friend.
we can disagree on UHC, Gun rights, et al, but it's very easy to glam onto the mob of your tribe... think for yourself my friend.
link to quotes.
so you believe, that the one instance of proud boy racist douches inciting violence in one blm protest means every blm protest that ended up in rioting and looting was due to racists POEing protests?
you know better. come on.
fair elections will come down to 2fa and qr codes. but democrats think black people are too fucking stupid to even get an ID.
I am glad it's over, I am saddened by whats replaced it, straight up fascism, scapegoating and acceptance that diverging views is grounds for marginalizing half the country.
I have ALWAYS been informed.
so you think when I think people who would cheer me being sent to a concentration, or re-education camp thinks I am a laughing stock is laughing at me I would care? I don't value this sort of mindset and you can laugh all you want. but bring the violence you all are suddenly seemingly to be supporting don't cry foul when one capable and comfortable with violence brings violence to those who are not yet cheer for it.
we are at a crossroads. there is brinkmanship here, both sides need to dial it back before those comfortable with violence thinks violence is needed.
you fucking fascists need to dial back your rhetoric before you get the violence you wish. jus sayin