Hey, I posted a video. You questioned it. I think I supported it with facts, stats. Sorry they run counter your beliefs.
I suppose you have a problem with blacks in the South not being given legal representation and being convicted in kangaroo courts, often resulting in lynching. I see little difference in this matter. What surprises me is that you do.
Stop being an incessant troll.
Stop insinuating that I'd move for black people to be lynched and for people to be tried and convicted without full due process. That's what makes you a troll. I can counter your point if you can at least be civil, which is really contrary to everything you know as being a poster on this forum.
I am not insinuating you are for lynching black people without a trial. I am also stating that colleges are acting in a similar manner by convicting male students without full due process. The person's skin color shouldn't matter, nor should gender. If you believe colleges can prosecute male students internally without a lawyer present, and without due process, I see little difference. It's just modern day lynching. I'm not using race as a separator. You may be, but I'm not. I'm using due process for "individuals". With the Jim Crow situation in the South, blacks were convicted based on race. On college campuses today, males are convicted based on their sex. It's still discriminatory.
Regarding "trolling", here's what wiki says.In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.
Maybe I start more controversial subjects, like AGW. But on economics? Marxist philosophy was the basis used to great extent in the 20th century, and supported by many Americans, people like Walter Duranty of the NY Times(a Stalin admirer) J.K. Galbraith(a Mao and Soviet admirer) and someone like Arthur Miller(a Castro admirer). On the contrary, I view the socialist experiments as impoverishing at best, deadly at worst. What killed more people in the 20th century than socialism/communism? Pol Pot's "Kampuchea" was recognized by the UN, for goodness sakes. So, when I read Piketty posts, am I the one posting inflammatory statements or sowing discord? Or is the poster supporting such views? The last Piketty post, he was quoted as saying, "Marx didn't go far enough", and on NPR last week, someone being interviewed re the book stated, "Marx was right after all." I view this as dangerous. Makes one see how right Stalin was when he termed people like this, "useful idiots." And while many don't want to be called socialists(including Piketty) or communists, what is one to think if they espouse Marxist doctrine and socialist philosophy? Naomi Klein's(AGW supporter and writer) is calling for an end to capitalism, and global socialism. Her work is incoherent, almost circular. At least what I've read.
Politics and economics, from my perspective, are blood sports. One needs to be prepared. On the 97% for AGW, this is complete rubbish. I posted the pdf on each "method" of arriving at this. On the 1 in 5 women assaulted, this is laughable. Think about it, using Ohio State. Look at these numbers:
reported OSU assaults Number of female students 1 in 5 would be
98 28,000 5,600 female students supposedly assaulted.
Do you really believe 5,600 assaults were committed and only 98 reported? So, why is this done? Female votes. Once again, I believe in individual rights, not group rights. As a group, males are discriminated against, like blacks were in the Jim Crow south. Maybe to a different degree, but nonetheless, it's their sex which makes them guilty, as it was the skin color which made blacks guilty. Look at the Duke prof who gave two "F's" to lacrosse players, saying they were "accomplices to rape". If that's not discriminatory on the basis of sex, what is it?