You claimed that "they" have been doing this "forever". So you don't have the evidence beyond...
Hell, look up the 60 minutes with Morgan Freeman and Mike Wallace (IIRC). It was exactly this, and that was 20 years ago. Do you want data? Because obviously nobody is going to be able to provide it, so technically you win the argument. Good job.
Or are you looking for a NOT ALL? Because obviously NOT ALL Jewish people do this, but a lot do (not necessarily a large percentage, but there's no shortage of examples), and those that do should be chastised for it. And Bret just did exactly this.
This. Nobody should get their panties in a bunch for pointing out a common phenomenon by asking for a "not all" qualifier. "Not all" is always implied. If someone here thinks almost every black is an outlaw or almost every Jew is traitorous to their homeland or almost every woman wants men to be subjugated, that's on them.
I don't think these are reasonable opinions to have and people have shown here repeatedly that "not all" is absolutely a qualifier whenever such generalizations are made.
The very reason generalizations about Jews (or Muslims, for that matter) are made with such glee is this knee-jerk reaction u/AntonioOfVenice is demonstrating, where there's different standards on who it is okay to generalize about. To put it simply, people will stop circlejerking once they'll stop getting a rush out of it.
I agree all men are trash, we can’t even toxic masculinity better than women. It took one Supreme Court ruling for women to actively genocide 50 million Americans in 50 years, no actions men have taken were ever that effective at killing Americans. Most first work countries are cuckholded beyond belief in favor of women.
So you approve of the statement: "White men are trash."
No, I don't, and that's a rather dishonest argument. The claim that "white men are trash" is fundamentally different than, say, "Jews are not loyal to their country". Only the latter describes an observable phenomenon, while the former is a generic insult and cannot ever be considered constructive. If a generalization is observable, the individual can decide for themselves if they personally agree with it. For example, I don't agree with a lot of the things being said here, but guess what? I'm still here.
Not for me.
...right. In this very thread, you wrote the following:
These low IQ ignoramuses were claiming to be oppressioned, by Bret. It's only fair that he point out that he actually belongs to a group who has suffered far more than these idiots.
You have made the claim that Jews as a group have suffered more than black people. This a generalization about Jews (and black people), one which you have not even bothered substantiating.
You are invoking the fallacy of historical grievance among large groups. The implication is that, since Jews as a group have suffered more (by some arbitrary measuring standard), it is less acceptable to generalize about them. Now, I'm sure you don't agree that the current generation of blacks in America deserve reparations because several generations ago they might have been descendants of slaves. You have failed to show how this suffering applies to Weinstein himself. As far as I can tell, he's an upper-middle class man from an affluent upbringing. Why should the historical suffering of the Jews apply to him?
You also had no issue with asserting that these black in the podcast were "low IQ". Isn't that a generalization, a rather offensive one? Or is it only okay to make generalizations based on personal observations when it is convenient? For example, if I were to say that Weinstein is a "turncoat" which is "something that I have observed in many American Jews" (by the way, I don't agree with this opinion!), how is it fundamentally different than you asserting that the black podcasters were "low IQ" because you have observed that certain groups of black Americans tend to skew that way?
Because obviously NOT ALL Jewish people do this, but a lot do (not necessarily a large percentage, but there's no shortage of examples),
There's no shortage of example for any number of things, but the way /pol/tards and Stormfags harp on it is ridiculous. It's almost as if they have a problem with Jews, period.
And Bret just did exactly this.
Nothing wrong with what Bret did. These low IQ ignoramuses were claiming to be oppressioned, by Bret. It's only fair that he point out that he actually belongs to a group who has suffered far more than these idiots.
Hell, look up the 60 minutes with Morgan Freeman and Mike Wallace (IIRC). It was exactly this, and that was 20 years ago. Do you want data? Because obviously nobody is going to be able to provide it, so technically you win the argument. Good job.
Or are you looking for a NOT ALL? Because obviously NOT ALL Jewish people do this, but a lot do (not necessarily a large percentage, but there's no shortage of examples), and those that do should be chastised for it. And Bret just did exactly this.
NOT ALL.
This. Nobody should get their panties in a bunch for pointing out a common phenomenon by asking for a "not all" qualifier. "Not all" is always implied. If someone here thinks almost every black is an outlaw or almost every Jew is traitorous to their homeland or almost every woman wants men to be subjugated, that's on them.
I don't think these are reasonable opinions to have and people have shown here repeatedly that "not all" is absolutely a qualifier whenever such generalizations are made.
The very reason generalizations about Jews (or Muslims, for that matter) are made with such glee is this knee-jerk reaction u/AntonioOfVenice is demonstrating, where there's different standards on who it is okay to generalize about. To put it simply, people will stop circlejerking once they'll stop getting a rush out of it.
Really? So you approve of the statement: "White men are trash." Made by SJWs?
Not for me. That's the whole reason I oppose this SJW cult.
I agree all men are trash, we can’t even toxic masculinity better than women. It took one Supreme Court ruling for women to actively genocide 50 million Americans in 50 years, no actions men have taken were ever that effective at killing Americans. Most first work countries are cuckholded beyond belief in favor of women.
No, I don't, and that's a rather dishonest argument. The claim that "white men are trash" is fundamentally different than, say, "Jews are not loyal to their country". Only the latter describes an observable phenomenon, while the former is a generic insult and cannot ever be considered constructive. If a generalization is observable, the individual can decide for themselves if they personally agree with it. For example, I don't agree with a lot of the things being said here, but guess what? I'm still here.
...right. In this very thread, you wrote the following:
You have made the claim that Jews as a group have suffered more than black people. This a generalization about Jews (and black people), one which you have not even bothered substantiating.
You are invoking the fallacy of historical grievance among large groups. The implication is that, since Jews as a group have suffered more (by some arbitrary measuring standard), it is less acceptable to generalize about them. Now, I'm sure you don't agree that the current generation of blacks in America deserve reparations because several generations ago they might have been descendants of slaves. You have failed to show how this suffering applies to Weinstein himself. As far as I can tell, he's an upper-middle class man from an affluent upbringing. Why should the historical suffering of the Jews apply to him?
You also had no issue with asserting that these black in the podcast were "low IQ". Isn't that a generalization, a rather offensive one? Or is it only okay to make generalizations based on personal observations when it is convenient? For example, if I were to say that Weinstein is a "turncoat" which is "something that I have observed in many American Jews" (by the way, I don't agree with this opinion!), how is it fundamentally different than you asserting that the black podcasters were "low IQ" because you have observed that certain groups of black Americans tend to skew that way?
I remember that. That was awesome. https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/5k2hc4/silly_sjw_smacked_down_by_god_himself_history/
There's no shortage of example for any number of things, but the way /pol/tards and Stormfags harp on it is ridiculous. It's almost as if they have a problem with Jews, period.
Nothing wrong with what Bret did. These low IQ ignoramuses were claiming to be oppressioned, by Bret. It's only fair that he point out that he actually belongs to a group who has suffered far more than these idiots.