NFL HELL: Owners/TV networks face mounting losses as Trump called boycotts spread

[Madison320]

I wasn't supporting Kucinich- I was showing how Ron Paul and he worked together on stuff and had a deep respect for each other. Instead of looking at this some got their panties in a twist & refused to read what RP had said about Kucinich.

And my answer to your question is NEITHER.

So do you feel the same about Trump? Should we work with him on the things we agree about and try to convince him to change his mind where he's wrong?


That's a non answer. Ok, I'll ask it a different way. Who is more freedom oriented? Molyneux or Mandela?

[Gumba of Liberty]

Exactly!

It's really not that complicated!

Not exactly. The State and the Fiat Empire controlling it uses scapegoats as an excuse to grow in power and violate the Natural Rights of the People.

First they came for the Communists (and built the Military Industrial Complex.)
Then they came for the Drug Users (and stated the War on Drugs.)
Then they came for the Terrorists (and built the Police State.)
Then they came for the Racists (and abolished Freedom of Speech.)
Then they came for the Cash Users (and abolished Independent Wealth.)
Then they came for the Gun Owners (and extinguished the American Resistance to the New “Anglo-Zionist Banking” World Order.)

[acptulsa]

Molyneux or Mandela?

The Swamp threw Mandela in prison. Molyneux carries water for the swamp.

Should we give up on draining the swamp until Trump cuts the size of the federal government and the 14,000 federal regulations that make everything illegal (including breathing, in certain circumstances)? Yes, you say? Cutting that stuff is more important than ridding ourselves of the most corrupt bunch of sadistic robber barons since Louis XVI and his buddy Marquis de Sade?

So, is Trump cutting five complete cabinet departments like Ron Paul would have done? Is he cutting three cabinet departments like Rick Perry said he would do? Is he cutting anything at all? Or is he just failing to pass some--maybe even most--of the additional regulations that Obama put in the pipeline? Indeed, is Rick Perry not now in charge of one of the cabinet departments he himself promised to cut?

Should we work with him on things we agree about? Depends. Is he going to stop trying to stick that puny pacifier in our mouths and get around to doing some actual work? That's a yes or no question, by the way. 'Let's keep sucking his cock like a good little cuck and see if we get a treat someday' is not an option.

I know all good conservatives like to pretend we're Superman and can fix the world without making a single friend. But Superman is as fictitious as the Leftist's unicorn, so we might just have a few allies--or give up and just roll over and take that pacifier in the ass as well. Or is that too real world to even consider?

[helmuth_hubener]

Interesting.

I believe they said the same thing about the Jews in that day.

Freedom is only for the pure, amirite? INSTEAD OF LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR AND CONVERTING THEM TO TRUTH THROUGH COMPASSION, LET'S JUST:

"Remove freak Socialists physically from society, so MY society can continue to exist."

Tell me how that is any different than the very ones YOU condemn.

I will certainly be glad to explain. First, ask thineself: dost thou really want to understand? If thou hast come to dislike me -- as is definitely the case -- thine amygdala will shut out my words, as sure and surer as any ear plugs.

You are presenting the Shining Happy Peasants Holding Hands Across the World vision. It's a nice vision. But it's exceeding shallow and naive. It's also a decidedly Rabbit vision. It really does not appeal to the K-selected (the competitive, the conservative). No emotional resonance. We'd rather compete and win and care for our own glowing hearths and beloved kin, and just do not emotionally care about the endless hordes of peasants and riff-raff around the world. To hold their hands would be ectasy for thee, but for me, it is "meh". No interest.

So, what do the K-selected care about? Practicalities. Reality. Their families. And thus: Winning. These people, like me, care more about creating a good life for their children than signaling their virtue to their leftist friends. An *actual* good life (results matter). Their loyalty to their grandkids is stronger than their loyalty to some Imaginary Utopia.

Does that make sense to you, Ender? I already know it doesn't. It's a different world, a very different emotional landscape than the one ye inhabit. Still, I write, for others.

Anyway, it's very interesting stuff, really solid, fascinating science. However, as I just said in reply to Nobody's Hero, this is anything but complicated. It's really, really simple!

Freedom good.
Socialism bad.

Socialism bad, bad, bad, bad.

That's nice that you want to take the side of the socialists in opposition to the side of the libertarians, and do so on a libertarian forum, no less! A bit quixotic, but hey, you've got to follow your heart!

[Ender]

I will certainly be glad to explain. First, ask thineself: dost thou really want to understand? If thou hast come to dislike me -- as is definitely the case -- thine amygdala will shut out my words, as sure and surer as any ear plugs.

You are presenting the Shining Happy Peasants Holding Hands Across the World vision. It's a nice vision. But it's exceeding shallow and naive. It's also a decidedly Rabbit vision. It really does not appeal to the K-selected (the competitive, the conservative). No emotional resonance. We'd rather compete and win and care for our own glowing hearths and beloved kin, and just do not emotionally care about the endless hordes of peasants and riff-raff around the world. To hold their hands would be ectasy for thee, but for me, it is "meh". No interest.

So, what do the K-selected care about? Practicalities. Reality. Their families. And thus: Winning. These people, like me, care more about creating a good life for their children than signaling their virtue to their leftist friends. An *actual* good life (results matter). Their loyalty to their grandkids is stronger than their loyalty to some Imaginary Utopia.

Does that make sense to you, Ender? I already know it doesn't. It's a different world, a very different emotional landscape than the one ye inhabit. Still, I write, for others.

Anyway, it's very interesting stuff, really solid, fascinating science. However, as I just said in reply to Nobody's Hero, this is anything but complicated. It's really, really simple!

Freedom good.
Socialism bad.

Socialism bad, bad, bad, bad.

That's nice that you want to take the side of the socialists in opposition to the side of the libertarians, and do so on a libertarian forum, no less! A bit quixotic, but hey, you've got to follow your heart!

Never have I made that statement.

Maybe it is YOU who should learn something from Ron Paul, stop your hate, and better-than-thou-bullshite and learn what LIBERTY really means.

[Ender]

The Swamp threw Mandela in prison. Molyneux carries water for the swamp.

Should we give up on draining the swamp until Trump cuts the size of the federal government and the 14,000 federal regulations that make everything illegal (including breathing, in certain circumstances)? Yes, you say? Cutting that stuff is more important than ridding ourselves of the most corrupt bunch of sadistic robber barons since Louis XVI and his buddy Marquis de Sade?

So, is Trump cutting five complete cabinet departments like Ron Paul would have done? Is he cutting three cabinet departments like Rick Perry said he would do? Is he cutting anything at all? Or is he just failing to pass some--maybe even most--of the additional regulations that Obama put in the pipeline? Indeed, is Rick Perry not now in charge of one of the cabinet departments he himself promised to cut?

Should we work with him on things we agree about? Depends. Is he going to stop trying to stick that puny pacifier in our mouths and get around to doing some actual work? That's a yes or no question, by the way. 'Let's keep sucking his cock like a good little cuck and see if we get a treat someday' is not an option.

I know all good conservatives like to pretend we're Superman and can fix the world without making a single friend. But Superman is as fictitious as the Leftist's unicorn, so we might just have a few allies--or give up and just roll over and take that pacifier in the ass as well. Or is that too real world to even consider?

In full agreement-

[Ender]

Not exactly. The State and the Fiat Empire controlling it uses scapegoats as an excuse to grow in power and violate the Natural Rights of the People.

First they came for the Communists (and built the Military Industrial Complex.)
Then they came for the Drug Users (and stated the War on Drugs.)
Then they came for the Terrorists (and built the Police State.)
Then they came for the Racists (and abolished Freedom of Speech.)
Then they came for the Cash Users (and abolished Independent Wealth.)
Then they came for the Gun Owners (and extinguished the American Resistance to the New “Anglo-Zionist Banking” World Order.)

^^^THIS^^^

[Superfluous Man]

Say what you want. Free market forces at work.

Not exactly. Behind the patriotic fervor of the lemmings is governmental interference in the markets through getting America into wars and all that that entails, most notably conscription and propaganda, as well as paying the NFL to engage in patriotic displays.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/us/nfl...rnd/index.html

[Madison320]

In full agreement-

Who is more freedom oriented? Molyneux or Mandela? It's not a trick question.

[acptulsa]

Who is more freedom oriented? Molyneux or Mandela? It's not a trick question.

Yes it is. It very much is.

Mandela was pro-socialism. Molyneux is pro-swamp. This makes both of them half bad.

Which evil do you want to tackle first would be a legitimate question. But to your trick question, the only intelligent answer is, Molyneux is a greater threat to liberty for the solid and sound reason that Mandela is dead

[acptulsa]

@Zippyjuan! You're back! Got any clarification for our edification yet?

[helmuth_hubener]

Never have I made that statement.

And, happily, I did not accuse you of making any statement. Right? Go back and check. Yep, sure enough, no statement claimed by Helmuth to have been made by Ender. So, perfect! Agreement! We can join hands in love, harmony, and total agreement. Yes!

Maybe it is YOU who should stop your hate

Behold, the Rabbit mind. All I did was nicely, politely explain the K-selected mindset to him, and he feels hate. He starts spewing vulgarities at me (despite being a minister!). Everyone, please understand that I think Ender actually does experience this as hate. He's sincere. Just hearing about it, even in the nicest possible way, and safely over the Internet, is enough to trigger the threat response.

Anyway, let's drop that line of thought since Ender is not going to be able to understand any of it, much less contribute to the discussion; it will just agitate him.

Let's talk about free speech, because that's interesting, too. And very important!

As for me, I am a bit of an absolutist on free speech, you could say. Some say there should be limits. I tend to think not. I am inclined to allow everything: fire-related shouting in theaters, slander and libel, and yes, even death threats. What, you say? Surely it shouldn't be legal to go around saying "I am going to kill you!" I would say it should be. What should not be legal is taking actual actions to implement your murderous plan. Making the threat of the crime itself not a crime will pose no real hinderance to enforcement and punishment of the criminal for a well-functioning crime-prevention system.

Likewise, it should be technically legal to make all other criminal threats, such as "I want to tax you," or "I believe in Universal Health Care," or "We need to make laws to end Global Warming." It's only consistent. Spew forth whatever words you want. What should be illegal is to actually believe these things! . In other words, to take any actions, such as but not limited to: joining the Democrat or Socialist Party, donating money to people promising to carry out these threats, organizing clubs, advocacy groups, or mob actions trying to make these criminal threats real, or anything else tangibly advancing (or attempting to advance) the criminal goals of socialism, communism, or any other criminal ideology.

Hope that clears that up!

Somebody starts making criminal threats (such as saying "I'm with Marx" or "I'm with Charles Manson" or wearing a Che Guevera T-shirt) then law enforcement should simply be activated, he should be followed everywhere he goes, surrounded by well-armed men, actively monitored and prevented from following through on his criminal threat (or any other effective preventative measures). This continues until he permanently leaves the society. If at any time he does something to attempt to further the goals of socialism, that is, follow through and commit an actual crime, he should and must be forcibly physically removed.

Look, a society that tolerates authoritarians cannot survive as a free society. The people matter. Society is its people. If a population consists 80% of supporters of authoritarianism, what kind of society will that be? Come on, just take a wild guess.

This is really not that complicated.

Freedom good.
Tyranny bad.

Tyranny bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

Freedom will be in places where the *people* love and value freedom. Tyranny will exist where people buy into tyranny. The freedom people -- namely me, for example -- have a right to exclude the tyranny-lovers from their community. If they do not, then bottom line: that means they would not have the right to exist. They would not have a right to freedom. They will never have freedom unless they can exclude and physically expel the parasites and criminals who would rule over them and rob their property.

This is really basic stuff. It's so simple.

[Ender]

And, happily, I did not accuse you of making any statement. Right? Go back and check. Yep, sure enough, no statement claimed by Helmuth to have been made by Ender. So, perfect! Agreement! We can join hands in love, harmony, and total agreement. Yes!



Behold, the Rabbit mind. All I did was nicely, politely explain the K-selected mindset to him, and he feels hate. He starts spewing vulgarities at me (despite being a minister!). Everyone, please understand that I think Ender actually does experience this as hate. He's sincere. Just hearing about it, even in the nicest possible way, and safely over the Internet, is enough to trigger the threat response.

Anyway, let's drop that line of thought since Ender is not going to be able to understand any of it, much less contribute to the discussion; it will just agitate him.

Let's talk about free speech, because that's interesting, too. And very important!

As for me, I am a bit of an absolutist on free speech, you could say. Some say there should be limits. I tend to think not. I am inclined to allow everything: fire-related shouting in theaters, slander and libel, and yes, even death threats. What, you say? Surely it shouldn't be legal to go around saying "I am going to kill you!" I would say it should be. What should not be legal is taking actual actions to implement your murderous plan. Making the threat of the crime itself not a crime will pose no real hinderance to enforcement and punishment of the criminal for a well-functioning crime-prevention system.

Likewise, it should be technically legal to make all other criminal threats, such as "I want to tax you," or "I believe in Universal Health Care," or "We need to make laws to end Global Warming." It's only consistent. Spew forth whatever words you want. What should be illegal is to actually believe these things! . In other words, to take any actions, such as but not limited to: joining the Democrat or Socialist Party, donating money to people promising to carry out these threats, organizing clubs, advocacy groups, or mob actions trying to make these criminal threats real, or anything else tangibly advancing (or attempting to advance) the criminal goals of socialism, communism, or any other criminal ideology.

Hope that clears that up!

Somebody starts making criminal threats (such as saying "I'm with Marx" or "I'm with Charles Manson" or wearing a Che Guevera T-shirt) then law enforcement should simply be activated, he should be followed everywhere he goes, surrounded by well-armed men, actively monitored and prevented from following through on his criminal threat (or any other effective preventative measures). This continues until he permanently leaves the society. If at any time he does something to attempt to further the goals of socialism, that is, follow through and commit an actual crime, he should and must be forcibly physically removed.

Look, a society that tolerates authoritarians cannot survive as a free society. The people matter. Society is its people. If a population consists 80% of supporters of authoritarianism, what kind of society will that be? Come on, just take a wild guess.

This is really not that complicated.

Freedom good.
Tyranny bad.

Tyranny bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

Freedom will be in places where the *people* love and value freedom. Tyranny will exist where people buy into tyranny. The freedom people -- namely me, for example -- have a right to exclude the tyranny-lovers from their community. If they do not, then bottom line: that means they would not have the right to exist. They would not have a right to freedom. They will never have freedom unless they can exclude and physically expel the parasites and criminals who would rule over them and rob their property.

This is really basic stuff. It's so simple.

As long as it's freedom for YOU, amirite?

And, yes, you did accuse me:

That's nice that you want to take the side of the socialists in opposition to the side of the libertarians, and do so on a libertarian forum, no less! A bit quixotic, but hey, you've got to follow your heart!

I am against anti-freedom. If you promote that, I'm going to call you on it, especially when you were not asked to join in my conversation.

As for my ministry:



"I'm not that kind of angel."

[euphemia]

Except you are taking an anti liberty position. Players are free to do what they want and fans can do what they want. That' the problem with the entertainment industry. Offend the consumer and expect to lose money. Ask the Dixie Chicks.

[Ender]

Except you are taking an anti liberty position. Players are free to do what they want and fans can do what they want. That' the problem with the entertainment industry. Offend the consumer and expect to lose money. Ask the Dixie Chicks.

Are you are talking to me?

[Swordsmyth]

Yes it is. It very much is.

Mandela was pro-socialism. Molyneux is pro-swamp. This makes both of them half bad.

Which evil do you want to tackle first would be a legitimate question. But to your trick question, the only intelligent answer is, Molyneux is a greater threat to liberty for the solid and sound reason that Mandela is dead

Alright who is more opposed to liberty? Molyneux?(Note: I dislike him) Or Kucinich?(He is still alive)

[Madison320]

Alright who is more opposed to liberty? Molyneux?(Note: I dislike him) Or Kucinich?(He is still alive)

Apparently Ender and acptulsa think communists like Kucinich and Mandela are more liberty oriented then guys like Molyneux and Trump. That's why they want us to "forgive their faults" and "work with them where we agree". The problem is they don't feel the same about people like Molyneux and Trump.

The funny thing is that on the freedom scale it's not even close. If I had to rank them it'd be:

Mandela: 1
Kucinich: 2
Trump: 5
Molyneux: 8
Ron Paul: 10

[Swordsmyth]

Alright who is more opposed to liberty? Molyneux?(Note: I dislike him) Or Kucinich?(He is still alive)

@Ender @acptulsa

I'm waitng.................

[enhanced_deficit]

Brands are threatening to pull ads from NFL coverage if NBC keeps covering players' national-anthem protests

• Mike Shields
• Nov. 3, 2017, 4:53 PM

• NBCUniversal says that marketers want the league to stop covering the players' national-anthem protests or they will pull their ads.
• An executive at the media company thinks the controversy around the protests has hurt ratings.

---

http://www.businessinsider.com/brand...otests-2017-11

[helmuth_hubener]

As long as it's freedom for YOU, amirite?

Umm, actually: as long as it's not "IMAGINARY FAIRY" freedom. Because that, actually, is freedom for NOBODY. (Though it may make you sound virtuous to other dead-enders! )

• Freedom, by its nature, applies to everybody within the free community.
  
• Freedom, by its nature, does not exist in communities where there is a sizable population of authoritarians accepted and embraced as "part of the community."
  

Again, this is stupidly simple. It is the fun of "discussions" like this (better called "encounters" for there is nothing like thought nor discourse emanating from one of the sides) that the Rabbit mind will never accept this. It will never, never accept something blatantly obvious like "Siding with Socialists is Siding Against Freedom."

[helmuth_hubener]

Socialists do not have a 'right' to be socialist -- if they did, freedom would be an impossible absurdity.

Ender claims (and correct me if I've misunderstood, Ender! (I haven't)) all the different flavors of tyranny have the 'right' to do what they want to do -- namely, to tyrannize and terrorize us in all the innumerable colorful ways that Ender wants preserved -- and yet we also have the right to be rid of them. Wait, what? Exactly. It is one or the other. Either the rainbow nation tyrants have the 'right' to wave their rainbow flags over us and stomp us with their rainbow boots, or we decent people have the right to hang such critters from the lampposts.

Tyrants do not have a 'right' to be a tyrant.

Duh!

I mean, I think everyone here (other than Ender and SJWs or others of the Rabbit-leaning persuasion) can agree: this is stupid to have to be explaining this.

"And, yes, you did accuse me [of siding with socialists]"

Uhh, yeah: duh! Because, like, you did! Is that, like, fair and junk to point out, like, obvious stuff that actually happened?

If not, totally my bad.


"As for my ministry:

[video eating lots of sugar]"

So you love sugar. You're a dopamine addict. Gotta love that dopamine rush you get from that good, good, white powder suga, eh?

So... obese?

And your ministry is I guess promoting obesity, convincing other kids to become obese, and preaching obesity tolerance?

This is yet another way you are going to get cross-ways with the K-Selected. To us, the obese should be ridiculed, scorned, and shunned by normal society. At minimum they should be very much looked down upon. These are people with a lack of self-control, lack of self-discipline, who are too stupid or too worthless to notice when they are becoming unhealthily plump and to do something about it.

Eating sugar is stupid.

Supporting socialists' alleged "right" to be socialists and thus to cram socialism down your throat is stupid.

The Negro Felon League is stupid.

There's, like, a lot of stupid stuff out there! It's a beautiful rainbow of stupid, it's true. Too bad meanie-pantses like me would rather extinctify this vibrant rainbow instead of working to Preserve and Cherish and cOeXiSt!1 with it.

[euphemia]

Are you are talking to me?

No, just generally saying that market forces come into play faster in the entertainment industry than any other.

[helmuth_hubener]

@Ender @acptulsa

I'm waitng.................

Come on now, don't lump in Tulsa with Ender. Tulsa one time said something positive about the horrible, evil, murdering tyrant Nelson Mandela, and even then only in a round-about way (that 'the swamp' supposedly killed him or whatever (good riddance) and so maybe the enemy of our enemy... anyway, he made the effort to make it indirect, you see?). Anyone can make a slip-up. That's all it is. A slip-up.

As long as he now shuts up about it and does not "double down" and say further complimentary things about Nelson Mandela, who obviously was a horrible, evil, murdering tyrant, and someone as smart as acptulsa can of course see this obvious fact, let's let it slide and drop.

Tulsa's smart. I like Tulsa. Let's keep him around.

[Madison320]

@Ender @acptulsa

I'm waitng.................

Ender's M.O. is to refuse to disclose his position and then get outraged when we are forced to assume his stance on something. It's actually a pretty good tactic. You're never wrong if you never answer the question. Then again it kind of defeats the purpose of having a forum to debate ideas if you're just spouting propaganda without having to explain your position.

[Jamesiv1]

how did it go yesterday with the take-a-knee stuff? Did many teams do it? Did it get much coverage?

[euphemia]

Dunno. Didn't watch. Took hubby out for an anniversary dinner. He chose cheeseburgers, so we went to a local place we have never visited before. Yum.

[otherone]

how did it go yesterday with the take-a-knee stuff? Did many teams do it? Did it get much coverage?

Yesterday was a "gee, ain't the military swell?" day, with ads having players talk about how swell the military is, and coaches wearing khaki team gear. I almost cried, it was so touching. Pretty much left me feeling we'd be stupid NOT to mangle another generation of kids for reasons that I can't seem to remember. Oh yeah...freedom. And muslims.

[Swordsmyth]

Come on now, don't lump in Tulsa with Ender. Tulsa one time said something positive about the horrible, evil, murdering tyrant Nelson Mandela, and even then only in a round-about way (that 'the swamp' supposedly killed him or whatever (good riddance) and so maybe the enemy of our enemy... anyway, he made the effort to make it indirect, you see?). Anyone can make a slip-up. That's all it is. A slip-up.

As long as he now shuts up about it and does not "double down" and say further complimentary things about Nelson Mandela, who obviously was a horrible, evil, murdering tyrant, and someone as smart as acptulsa can of course see this obvious fact, let's let it slide and drop.

Tulsa's smart. I like Tulsa. Let's keep him around.

I also find tulsa to be more reasonable than ender, but tulsa dodged the question about Mandela vs. Molyneux so I changed it to Kucinich since he is still alive and all I hear from either one is crickets.

[helmuth_hubener]

And my answer to your question [who is better, Stefan Molyneux or Murderer Mandela?] is NEITHER.

Behold, the Ideologue. Unable to think in gradients, unable to make reasonable judgment calls, unable, in short, to deal with reality.

A normal person could say 'I'd rather have Stefan in charge, instituting libertarian reforms, than to have a known and proven evil, Murdering Communist in charge.' Like, even if that normal person were not in any way a libertarian he could say that, just by virtue of being normal.

A normal person could say 'All else equal, I'd rather the tax rate lower to 10% rather than increase to 23%.' They would even be capable of preferring 11% to 13%! Imagine. The Enders of the World? Can't. Their answer: "Neither."

"Neither."

In other words, "I don't care about reality, I hate reality, I can't deal with reality, I'm just going to virtue signal."

If a crazy does not and cannot bring himself to prefer more freedom and less tyranny to less freedom and more tyranny, do you think that he really truly would prefer total freedom and no tyranny? Even if he strenuously claims to? Could you really believe someone like that? Or is the crazy just delusional/lying/who-cares-but-obviously-crazy?

Here's a good blog post on the topic by the Anonymous Conservative:

Amygdala and Societal Shifts
Posted on November 3, 2017 by Anonymous Conservative

Sam J writes in the comments:

Maybe this explains why societal changes happen so fast. A small group steadfastly sticks to a position until they reach a certain trigger point then all the r’s switch to what they see as the winning side. These deep shifts could be thought of as “r” selected shifts. Not just a change in information that people suddenly see as true. A stampede.

It would seem to make this shift happen the best way to push it, given the irrationality of the “r’s” is for whatever side wants to win to make AS MUCH NOISE AS POSSIBLE. So all the people saying that Klan, KKK. Nazis, Anti-Semites and other assorted loud noisy people are doing harm is inaccurate. The fighting in Charlottesville was super eye candy to the r’s. They’re necessary for the noise. This would also explain how with all the corruption and dishonesty in the US State they can continue to hold power as long as the mass media continues to blurt out the State’s side. No matter how irrational, as the recent events in Vegas show. This is starting to break down as no young people watch much of the TV news at all and don’t believe what they’re saying anyways.

I agree with this. There are a large swath of sheep who, even though they don’t know it, have amygdalae which seek calm by subconsciously aligning with the winning side, and often that is the loudest, most scary side. I imagine anything triggering would do it, from unashamed white supremacists to just massive crowds marching to drumbeats, and chanting cadences in perfect unison, like Marines jogging in formation. To align against that would be amygdala-stimulating, and their brain feels that amygdala sensation the same way we feel something is wrong – it bothers them until they adopt what they see as “right.”

This is an important point for the Aspies who like this site to understand. Note that amygdala is a feeling, and it is that feeling which guides your logical analysis, and does it the same way a feeling guides your deeper emotional preferences. If your commitment is to truth, that is an emotional commitment, driven by the same amygdala-pain you feel when your loved one suffers with an illness, or when you see a helpless animal hurt unnecessarily. It is the emotional drive that motivates you to seek the unemotional logic. It is a deep emotional hatred for wrong that motivates us to seek right. It is the illogical that drives us to pursue the logical, especially in a world which is so upside down that the illogical people actually thrive on illogicality. Imagine how much money you could have made under Obama by adopting the left’s bologna and filing for global warming research grants, or setting up immigrant processing companies. It was your emotion, not your logic holding you back.

Realize that your pursuit of the logical and the correct is driven by the same amygdala that other’s feel in response to insecurity, fear, and lack of pleasure. When SJWs say they feel unsafe and that is wrong, that is the same feeling you get when you feel logically wrong – a nagging cognitive shock produced by the amygdala that you cannot abide by, and which you feel needs rectification.

So when the r-strategist with an easily panicked amygdala sees a nation warming up the ovens, they will quickly conclude the oven operators have a logical point – immigrants are $#@!ing up the nation, Blacks/Mexicans/Muslims/Any-group-in-opposition-to-the-oven-operators are not actually human, and the ovens are a logical step which the decent were forced to by the intransigence of “these enemies of decency.”

I truly believe the extremists in movements, which Eric Hoffer wrote about, are r-selected rabbits with stress-intolerant amygdalae who use extremism as an amygdala-calming technique because they have to. We don’t need that calm, so we can tolerate gray areas and moderate our ideals, and even say we don’t know stuff. Our amygdalae can exist in that state of mild stimulation. Their amygdalae cannot because they need certainty and they need to be in the group firmly and feel they belong, if they are to feel safe.

[otherone]

In other words, "I don't care about reality, I hate reality, I can't deal with reality, I'm just going to virtue signal."

Speaking of reality, I hope you see the irony in calling someone an ideologue for failing to respond to a hypothetical choice.