Yes, the CCP was the real victim of the Tiananmen massacre. The government of China didn't want to crackdown violently on the civil rights protest. What happened wasn't the fault, of the government, it was the citizens at the protest made them do it. That's akin saying the Civil Rights Act was the wrong outcome of the protests and riots and violence that happened in America leading up to it. It wasn't the government that wanted to abuse black citizens, they were forced to do it. If they has just followed the law instead of causing such civil unrest; I guess all those protesters that were abused and mistreated by the US government agents had it coming, right? I'm glad your here to set everyone straight.

And the fuckups that imbibe poison have a better "quality of life?" What does "get much less out of [life]" even mean? A pious asshole doesn't inflict the rest of society with their anti-social behavior (drunk driving, domestic violence, etc.) like a drunk asshole, so a the latter has a more meaningful life?

There is so much to unpack here. It's like toxic trope bingo.

What is wrong with your little sister that you'd demean her like that? It appears you consider her beneath most men in ability and worth? This is the misogynistic trope of "you throw like a girl."

Calling someone a bitch is generally a term you use to feminize the target of your derision. So while you are using the term to mock males you are in fact equating that behavior with females and femininity. Nice backhanded insult to half the population, there.

Then you go on to promote the toxic masculinity trope. Men can't have feelings or if you do and you mention them you are a weak pathetic man. Just keep it bottled up because you are suppose to be a man and your condition doesn't concern anyone else, keep it to yourself.

Then more of the same toxic masculinity "man up, grow a pair... sniveling coward." And people wonder how school shooters are made.

again, it's not the more powerful version, or the cheap version. there is only one model produced. it's the same version unless you've drunk the kool aid believe the marketeers and their bs. i guess i'm just old enough to where i feel entitled to own what i buy.

nope. they are the same. one didn't cost more to produce than the other. they were produce with the same methods with all same components. the car company isn't selling the 'cheap' model for at loss. they are not thinking they'll make up the difference from the customers they conned into pay more for the same car. the 'cheap' is the baseline profit, anything above that is rent seeking gravy for them. but you keep telling yourself whatever you need to have your life make sense.

you can delude yourself into thinking that it is a better car in your own mind. in reality (the real world) it's not a better car, it's just the same car and they want weasel more money from the consumer.

no, it's not getting bilked for equipment that is already there. why not charge per seat or per passenger? you can buy the 1 passenger model for $1000 less, but if you want to have a passenger use the seat next you? that's an extra $10 per passenger per ride.

So are we to pity them or revile them? I'm not debating their behavior but curious as to why they behave the way they do and how we should see them.

Are they born that way (nature) or conditioned to be that way (nurture)? Is their behavior their fault or is it output (behavior) resultant from the input (stimuli) after it's run through their circuits?

Are they primitive people left behind by society's advances and find themselves left out? or a willful obstinance to conform to a culture that they clash with?

Are their actions a mutable part of their identity and redeemable or are they a intrinsic lower life form and we get to write them off?

Are they the undesirables, the scapegoats that we can use to make us feel better about ourselves because we can say, "At least I'm not one of them."

How do you view these people who are called "incels?"

Sounds like you figured out how to put a stop to this senseless violence and crime. All along we just needed the government to tell everyone what to do and not do. We'll have them make laws that everyone has to obey. Obviously, we can't trust anyone to act responsibly without the threat of incarceration and/or lethal force. We're on our way to global peace and harmony now. Thanks, man.

Trudeau is not smart person. How do I know? As you inferred, I would know him as a smart person, otherwise.

Really? As others have stated she only represents Massachusetts. I see no problem with taunting a fungible public servant (and if by association the constituents that voted her in) on a backwards social media platform. If any public servant is substituting their personal feelings (and delusion of grandeur) for rational judgement, they are not fit to hold the office. They do not deserve the respect or honor inherent in the office. If said public servant can't take a bit of hostility and snarky truth and to turn petty tit for tat, they've betrayed the public trust in the office they hold.

The USA should be a republic. There should be no aristocracy, or ruling class. No one should be untouchable or above the law, but more often than not when people get a little bit of perceived power, we see most of them head towards autocracy and abusive of authority while denying responsibility.

Really? What repercussions should they fear exercising constitutionally protected (not granted) activities? I see no problem with taunting a fungible public servant on backwards social media platform. If they are substituting their personal feelings (and delusion of grandeur) for rational judgement, they are not fit to hold the office or deserve respect or the honor inherent in the office. If said public servant can't take a bit of hostility and snarky truth and to turn petty tit for tat, they've betrayed the public trust in the office they hold. This USA should be a republic. There should be no aristocracy, or ruling class, but people get a little bit of perceived power and we see most of them head towards autocracy and abusive of authority while denying responsibility.

and by that logic they should not tolerate you being intolerant of their intolerance?

do you even listen to yourself?

No, it's not. What's the reasoning that makes it's different? What makes it different other than you want it to be?

Congratulations, you've complete the condescension quest for today. Here's your badge.

Is it only churches that involve themselves in politics should lose tax exempt status?

If that is so, to be consistent should not all nonprofits that engage in politics lose their tax exempt status?

So with everything being political these days, we should get rid of all the 503c and other types nonprofit organizations then? or just the ones you disagree with?

Not take someone's money isn't the same as giving them money. If that was the case, you're welcome for all the money I didn't take from you. These churches are no different from Planned Parenthood, ACLU, or other non-profits that don't pay their 'fair share' of taxes. Some of which even only exist because of money taken from others and given to them (Planned Parenthood). You might cry they serve some kind public good or whatnot, but that just your judgement based on your subjective values.