The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

There have been reports that some are paid to show up. Also, whether laws positively affect someone or not, when someone can "get something better or for free", they'll show up whether honest or not. Lastly, regardless of why they showed up, a lot of people I know, who support various policies, work 6 days a week, they simply cannot go out of town or they get fired and their family starves to death, which is why it's fair to question why their families aren't starving with their frequent protests.

Also, people throw around "privilege" as a buzzword a lot. Women for the women's march, are arguably privileged. I may or may not be oppressed, but either way, I cannot march or protest, I have work later today. Under a manager who makes more than I do. And is a female. And that's okay, because she works more hours than should be asked of someone, and runs a good ship.

If we did march or protest, how many liberals would call us cucks and say we're just mansplaining and should all be shamed and fired from our jobs and cast out from society and be stripped of suffrage, and all that hypocritical nonsense? At LEAST as many people, as did re-post the "Shut up Megs" meme.

I've done first aid training and what @wpmarshall is saying is correct and fairly common sense. The rules are there for a reason- although quite a few of them do have exceptions, one example springs to mind:
- If you suspect a patient of having a head, neck or back injury you shouldn't move them as it could exacerbate their condition. However, if they are in an unsafe location (e.g. in the road in potential risk of being run over), then you move them to a safe location irrespective as it's more important.

Edit: Similarly- if someone is going to die without mouth to mouth, and you don't have a suitable face mask to hand, well it's up to the individual however I think many people would probably take the risk of an infection and try to save the patients life. Also an off topic note- mouth to mouth will *never* revive a person at the scene (that is a Hollywood myth), what it does is keep oxygen circulating around the recipients body to prevent organs from failing until an emergency response team can get to them and restart the patients heart with a defibrillator or similar.

it's part of CPR if you combine that with compression (the heart pressing thing) it can bring back the pulse. wait what thread is this ?

1. I see no reports provided.

2. I know plenty of people who can't make protests because of personal factors, or job-related factors. However, this is not an argument that casts doubt on the motives of those who attend. That's a bit of a trick you're pulling, there.

3. People do throw it around a lot. You calling it a buzzword doesn't de-legitimise it, though, despite your efforts. Plenty of demographics have privilege in various ways at various times. It's contextual, and it's relative.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

4. What would your march or protest about? The point about protests is they're usually down to some form of injustice. What injustice would you protest?

5. I have no idea why that first image is even relevant. You trying to say men have it worse because they're imprisoned more? I mean, that's a very silly point in the first place, but I don't want to assume anything.

Chest compression *does not restart the heart*- that is the myth. You can keep someone alive for a long time with mouth to mouth + chest compression *but* they won't wake up aka the movies. If the DO wake up- then they weren't in cardiac arrest and you would have actually seriously endangered their life (proper chest compression usually breaks ribs so I doubt you'd get thanks for doing it unnecessarily)...

Sorry for some reason in my head I switched you and @cwarner7264.... I have a tendency to do that, got my fiancee and my sister's names mixed up the other day- caused a somewhat confusing conversation (thankfully wasn't relating to anything NSFW)...

Well I am British as well tyvm... can't deny going a bit Senile though, now I'm in my 'twilight' years (in gaming terms )...

My point is- a 'British accent' isn't something I particularly notice- for me it's a 'normal' accent....

This is the cognitive dissonance that many on the left suffer from when they cannot distinguish between individual violent/criminal illegals and the non-hostile government of another country. The result: stupid memes that make no sense.

You might have a better case if you tried to actually make a coherent argument.

How is an image "cognitive dissonance"? That's a state of mind, frequently used to describe the irrational actions of those that suffer under the burden of it.

You know, for someone that spends a lot of time trying to insult others in ways that just-about-maybe don't break the forum rules, perhaps you should apply your own reasoning to your posts, before you his the Post Reply button?

Besides, the news for today is that the wall is going to be invisible in places, so it's fine. How many broken promises are you going to tolerate from the benevolent leader you seem to love so much

(>ლ) ☟☟☟☟☟☟☟☟☟☟☟☟☟☟☟☟☟☟

I have no idea why that D.C. protest was even relevant. You trying to say women have it worse because they're imprisoned less? I mean, that's a very silly point in the first place, they can vote, it's not illegal for them to seek any job, there is no federal law defining a lower minimum wage for them, there are agencies that already investigate any unequal treatment... but I didn't want to assume anything.

If twits can protest using irrelevant statistics as proof of social injustice, then cucks can protest using factual statistics as proof of social injustice. After all, the Holocaust was started, because a liberal arts student blamed his failures in life on a demographic of people he felt were privileged, yet "Trump is Fascist".

Pointing to the image doesn't make it any more clear what you'd be theoretically protesting about.

Rewriting my post to be moderately sarcastic doesn't help, either. It's almost like you have no constructive goal beyond spreading rhetoric because you've already convinced yourself that people like me, and others in this thread, can't be reasonably debated with.

Sucks to be you, I guess.

If you can be reasonably debated with, you'd know women have superior wages in some lower-end jobs, even men can't choose to be born CEOs and are thus subjected to same lower-end jobs, that they have priority legal enforcement, priority custody... they have forms of privilege, men have forms of oppression, very real forms. Men should definitely march on DC for equality. "Equality fer wut" ~Gorbles. EQUALITY FOR THE DAMNED LIST OF GRIEVANCES. The only problem, is men would get arrested, it would be called "satire", and we'd have to miss a day of work to do it, and then because liberal media is boycott-happy, they'd also start petitions to fire every male who missed work that day.

The thing is, if you'd given me even the slightest chance, you'd find out exactly how much of that I agree with. Which is to say, quite a bit.

It's a shame though, your ignorance blinds you. You assume these women, or these other people, aren't already fighting for similar things. You assume that men would be arrested (despite, uh, never, ever complaining about women and other minorities arrested for anything, ever? I've never seen you intervene in a political thread lamenting the shortcomings of the American justice system - of which there are many). You make cherrypicked points about where women are contextually better-off despite that systemic injustices have been proven by experts in their relative fields time and time again. You assume that the women (and others marching) didn't have to take time off, presumably based on some personal anecdote where you think a woman got unfair treatment. I don't know though; that's an assumption.

Give people a chance sometime. They might surprise you. And before you make a snappy retort of telling me to do the same, why do you think I've stuck with people in this thread for so long? I like to understand where they're coming from before making a judgement call.

And sorry, but you've already given me a lot to make a judgement call on. The difference is, I waited until post #2265 to make it. You and others who agree with you have been doing it for much longer.

There were 0 arrests for the Women's March, and 3 cases of vandalism and 1 videotaped assault that was taken shelter in a crowd. There were, essentially, crimes not prosecuted. Which really just about summarizes "women vs law enforcement" in this country entirely.

How's this as a generalization: "If they were black, they'd have been arrested". I think those not arrested, by evidence of that chart, would most certainly have at least been cuffed by police, were they anyone else. DAPL protesters faced worse stuff for less.

There are systematic injustices on both sides. Am I only focusing on ones in one side? No, I'm saying they are equal on both sides, they are both barred by law but happen anyway, they both happen in equal quantities, women do NOT have more injustices.

We'd do better, if we had a men's legal oppression march, and advocated for less prosecution for both genders. Because, we aren't meninazis, or feminazis, we are equalists.

ftfy