D-Light

Not quite understanding here... Are you suggesting that companies should tolerate their employees "demeaning, insulting and ridiculing minorities, immigrants and the physically/mentally disabled", something which Donald Trump unquestionably did as a candidate for President of the United States?

You could attempt to acknowledge their concerns and not dismiss them outright. Show them that you understand why they have these concerns and even that they concern you too. After doing so, see if they are willing and able to see your point of view. It they are, at the very least your disagreements will be civil. If not, you know what not to talk about around them (assuming you want to remain in a more superficial relationship with them).

Yes, the false dichotomy has been in operation as the "Two Party System" since almost the beginning of this Nation's existence. It has served the rulers of this country well. The notion that we would starve is the error.

I'm not a therapist, so I can't say from a therapist's point of view, but I do philosophize a bit and from the philosophical point of view, I think "trigger warning" tends to be used to tell people who are emotionally traumatized that something is going to be discussed and it's up to them to decide whether or not they want to listen to or be part of the discussion. It is not up to them; however, to attempt to derail or stop the discussion. At least, that's how I think it was originally intended and should be handled. On the other hand, I think a person who avoids "triggering" subjects will often do so not because they are actually triggered by them into a PTSD episode such as reliving the horror of being raped or physically controlled and abused, or verbally abused, etc. I think most people who do this are not in a truly fragile or vulnerable state, but are instead ideologically rigid and do not want to hear anything that might challenge their beliefs. Consequently, they pretend to be psychologically or emotionally triggered to an anxiety or panic attack or PTSD episode, but in fact the only thing being triggered is their sense of security in only being presented ideas with which they happen to agree or want to be true.

No doubt. (here in NYC)

Not an Argument. If you decide you want to behave in the same manner that you deride in others, that's certainly your prerogative.

It's a matter of in-group preferencing. Trump is viewed as the successful culmination of everything the demographic you speak of dreams of becoming. Rich, attracting beautiful women, power, respect, masculine, renegade, Individualist, the classic American Dream. Hillary represents the antithesis - Shrill, corrupt, unattractive, no respect for men, anti-masculine feminist, establishment, collectivist, elitist.

I never stated that you should cower to anyone. I simply suggested you live up to a higher standard of character and behavior than you attribute to those you deride. If you decide you want to behave in the same manner that you deride in others, that's certainly your prerogative.

Continue the course. Make certain to show up to court. Make certain your attorney presents a proper case against the accused. Make certain the judge makes it clear that the boy is to have absolutely no contact, directly or indirectly, positively or negatively with you in the future. Make certain that he is given to believe that you WILL protect yourself and others WILL protect you to his detriment if he even ever so much as crosses paths with you. It's time for him to become a ghost and for you to learn to defend yourself from potential predators such as this male.

Winners without any self-respect (and usually who did very, very, very little to win) are the only ones that gloat. Winners who fought hard, have self-respect, respect the differences of opinions of others, the propensity for mistakes in thinking and judgment, and the very legitimate concerns they have for the future do not gloat. They may be pleased, even relieved. They may revel in their victory, but they do NOT gloat. Gloating is indicative of vanity, unwarranted pride, and low character.

The quality of a person's character is evidenced by their words and circumstances. What kind of character do you have? What kind of character do you wish to have?

Cosmetics on a woman is like paint on the inside and outside of a house. Paint won't make the house any warmer in the winter. Paint won't make the walls any sturdier or keep the roof from leaking (at least not for very long). Paint won't keep the foundation from washing away or keep the floors from being eaten away by termites. If "the bones" of a house are no good, all a fresh coat of paint will do is serve to temporarily conceal this fact and convince the more inexperienced and shallow investor of a higher value than it rightly deserves. On the other hand, if "the bones" of the house are good, the foundation solid and strong, the walls and roof solid, strong, and in tact, the walls and roof or attic well insulated and the windows well built and maintained, a fresh coat of paint will make the house even more appealing and more attractive to the prospective investor as well as any who ultimately lives in it or frequently sees it. The paint doesn't turn a bad house into a good house, and the lack of paint won't generally turn a good house into a bad one. It will simply make both appear more attractive and pleasant and enhance the experience and enjoyment of both. Cosmetics on a woman (or a man) work exactly the same way. On a woman without many (or any) virtuous qualities, cosmetics and clothing can make her appear more attractive than she actually is to the person who is shallow or only looking for short, temporary enjoyment. For someone looking for a long-term relationship, these will only serve to temporarily conceal the many flaws and other vices she may possess. On the other hand, on a virtuous woman, skillfully selected and applied cosmetics and clothes will only serve to enhance the enjoyment one may experience with her. Her virtuous qualities may still be overlooked by shallow men seeking only passing or transitory interest in her; but such men would be less likely to be interested in her without her "make up"either. The man seeking a virtuous woman will see past her cosmetics and dress to "her bones", he will look to see whether the outward presentation matches the inner reality. And most men will experience greater enjoyment with such a virtuous woman who takes the trouble to present herself in the most attractive way she is able, just as she will experience similar enjoyment from a virtuous man who does likewise. So to answer the thread's titular question... it really all depends on whether it's used to enhance virtue, or conceal vice.

You don't think Obama and Hillary are Transformational politicians? We've moved markedly more towards socialism in the last 8 years... with Hillary, we might make it as far as Great Britain.

Voting for President merely perpetuates the illusion that the average individual actually has any power to affect change in the political world. What will your vote on Election day do? It will help the Electors from your state, district, or territory decide whom they should cast their vote for in the Electoral College. That is, it will help them do this IF the voting machines aren't rigged and the tallies from each machine are correct and IF the people in your state are roughly evenly split between the two major parties or strongly support a third party candidate. Even once this occurs, the votes will only inform the Electors who they SHOULD vote for in some cases: Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and only who they Really, Really Should (Obligated to) vote for (there's a nominal fine if they don't) in others: Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming If you live in one of the US Territories, you don't get to pretend like your voice matters once the candidates have been selected. So, go ahead and cast your vote next Tuesday if it will make you feel empowered. Just realize that unless you're an Elector in the Electoral College, it won't REALLY matter in who is selected for Figurehead Slave Master of the USA at all. It's all just one big Puppet Show to keep the masses pacified for another 2-4 years.

Will you go bankrupt like Trump if you lose so you can keep the money?

"You were named after the dog?" -- Sallah, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"

As I see it there are two sides to the question: To vote for Trump: He's the last best hope of staving off the apocalypse that is sure to come if Hillary Clinton is elected. To not vote: Voting is ineffectual, but even if it weren't, the dreaded consequences if Hillary is elected are greatly exaggerated, and supporting the charade of legitimacy of a representative democracy lacks integrity when there is little if any meaningful effect one may have on the system by voting. Pragmatically, If voting is effectual, one must weigh the cost/benefit of securing the lesser of two evils over adherence to the principle of not supporting tyranny by lending any credence to it through voluntary participation.

How it should have been written... "In order to satisfy their moral high ground, these nihilists who negate stuff and call it thinking like to imagine that they stand on top of the hierarchy of important topics, while those, like Stefan Molyneux, who are working the hardest to move the needle towards a free society are perceived to have foolishly descended to the bottom of the hierarchy by focusing on the fork in the road that is this upcoming election." I'm simply saying it would clarify the author's intent. I'm not convinced of the author's argument, nor am I convinced he is mistaken.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.