I'll take 90s-00s liberalism over CURRENT YEAR SJW and whatever drivel you're talking about.
If this was the 90s-2000s, you'd be mocked to no end. No wonder you mentioned that.
There is practically no difference:
Civil Rights Activists aka 1990s Center-Left
>Black man is the same (equal) as white man
>Man is the same (equal) as women
You have no right to treat a black person different from a white, that's racism.
You have no right to treat a man different from a women, that's sexism.
Force anti-discrimination, i.e. you have no right to choose how you behave, civil rights activists will tell you how to behave.
You think there is a different between whites and blacks? That's prejudice, bias.
You think there is a difference between men and women? Too bad you're a bigot.
You unhappy with the consequences of intergration (black crime), you're ignorant #notallblacks.
You unhappy with the consequence of feminism, destruction of the family, be tolerant.
What you want to control what we teach your kids? no sex ed to not oversexualize them? I don't think so.
You don't like affirmative action, think it's unfair, too bad.
SJWs today are just as authoritarian and insane as the CRAs. They apply the exact same ideas to new group like muslims or transgenders or illegals, etc. Likewsie forcing you to learn concepts like white guilt just like they forced you to learn anti discrimination. No difference between saying black men is the same as white man, gay marriage is marriage and transwomen is a women. All 3 of these statements are lies. The only difference is you grew up in a society where the the prior were already normalized.
If appeal to consequences fallacy worked the way you think it does, we could dismiss all of your talk about America turning into Brazil, black crime rates, white genocide, etc as appeal to consequences fallacy.
If simply talking about the consequences is a fallacy then fuck, open the borders! Why not? Argue against it without mentioning the consequences
@BoxerShorts47. If you mention a consequence, you lose.
Close but no cigar.
The fallacy occurs when INSTEAD of talking about the results of open borders and race mixing, you want to avoid this conversation by switching the subject to the consequences of me being right, in this case needing to deport people
Your argument is, "well you're right about race mixing and demographic future but you cannot implement your policies because I don't like deportations."
This is not a valid critique because if I am right, than deportations are necessary,
Freedom of association means that you don't need to marry a nigger in order to be legally recognized into society, not that niggers need to be kicked out of your place of work because you find them icky.
No. It means I have the right to not sell my house to a black person, not work with a black person. That's freedom of association.
