• Police: Student fabricated report she was beaten, robbed by Trump supporter
    62 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Twistai;51350184]The hell is wrong with you? Did you forget that only white people can be racist?[/QUOTE] Are you being sarcastic? Because it's true: only white people CAN be racist. Racism is the many problems that stem from the imperialist white empires' quest for dominion, and is heavily intertwined with the hierarchical structures in the postcolonial society. Sure, a black man can call you a 'honky' or even beat you up, but at the end of the day, you still have a greater life standard than him. His 'racism' is a direct result of oppression, and thus more justifiable. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("SJW wank that doesn't belong on the forum" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
I'm not baiting. Would you please argue against me, instead of trying to dismiss my concern as 'bait'?
You might be hitting on something important but don't use the term "racism" for that, racism already has a very strict definition that doesn't need to be muddied and made pointless.
[QUOTE=w00tf1zh;51364570]Are you being sarcastic? Because it's true: only white people CAN be racist. Racism is the many problems that stem from the imperialist white empires' quest for dominion, and is heavily intertwined with the hierarchical structures in the postcolonial society. Sure, a black man can call you a 'honky' or even beat you up, but at the end of the day, you still have a greater life standard than him. His 'racism' is a direct result of oppression, and thus more justifiable.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/tARaecp.png[/img] lmfao No, it is not justifiable in any manner. Fuck you and your sins of the father bullshit. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Gimmick" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;51349956]Another article to fuel the fight between which group of supporters are the worst. Case point, both sides have bad eggs.[/QUOTE] Can we kill off the bad eggs of both sides? Or lock em up? Something?? Is there a way to objectively define what makes a bad egg despite what ideal they adhere to?
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51364606]You might be hitting on something important but don't use the term "racism" for that, racism already has a very strict definition that doesn't need to be muddied and made pointless.[/QUOTE] In today's society it is important to broaden the meaning of the word 'racism'. If not, you end up with apologists who will not believe that anyone is racist unless they quite literally tattoo the word on their forehead. For example, look at any Trump supporter and their reasoning. Calling a certain ethnic group mostly rapists isn't racist, proposing a ban on another specific ethnic group isn't racist either, sharing propagande from right-wing groups (which falsify information about a certain ethnic group) isn't racist, and so on. It is important to remember that racism isn't simply direct insults, but that it manifests itself in many shapes and forms.
[QUOTE=Swedish Guy;51364609][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/tARaecp.png[/IMG] lmfao No, it is not justifiable in any manner. Fuck you and your sins of the father bullshit.[/QUOTE] What a wonderful sweden yes! meme [QUOTE=w00tf1zh;51364626]In today's society it is important to broaden the meaning of the word 'racism'. If not, you end up with apologists who will not believe that anyone is racist unless they quite literally tattoo the word on their forehead. For example, look at any Trump supporter and their reasoning. Calling a certain ethnic group mostly rapists isn't racist, proposing a ban on another specific ethnic group isn't racist either, sharing propagande from right-wing groups (which falsify information about a certain ethnic group) isn't racist, and so on. It is important to remember that racism isn't simply direct insults, but that it manifests itself in many shapes and forms.[/QUOTE] The problem with that is that racism is already defined in law with a very strict definition. There's already ways that can be used to describe those people, or an entirely new term could be created too. It is true that open bigotry is frowned upon and often illegal forcing it to be hidden, but you also lump wildly different people together.
People are also being paid to go to Anti-Trump protests. Looks like Trump is making tons of well paying jobs already!
in a perfect world we'd stop focusing on these god forsaken clubs and discuss matters as/with individuals.
[QUOTE=w00tf1zh;51364570]Are you being sarcastic? Because it's true: only white people CAN be racist. Racism is the many problems that stem from the imperialist white empires' quest for dominion, and is heavily intertwined with the hierarchical structures in the postcolonial society. Sure, a black man can call you a 'honky' or even beat you up, but at the end of the day, you still have a greater life standard than him. His 'racism' is a direct result of oppression, and thus more justifiable.[/QUOTE] White working class people had no hand in imperialism yet are the biggest scapegoats of middle class SJWs and 'global citizens' who primarily exist in cities and campuses The progressive left is incapable of dealing with the destructive effects of globalization on them and is politically subservient to the liberal center left, as has been proven over and over again most recently with bernie This center left cannot speak of class because of their wealthy sponsors but can virtue signal on the issue of race and gender since, being believers institutional reform, they can just establish things like race quotas and insitutional political correctness. Band aid fixes. The two issues combined, the cultural and economic war on the native working class and (after 91) the far left being fundamentally incapable of filling the void, has directly set the stage for the rise of nationalism among those 'problematic' blue collar workers and their much maligned homogenous societies, lad culture, and rust belt siege mentality that look incompatible with 'progress of history' as conceived by bourgeois liberals that enjoy ideological hegemony as of the last 25 years. As it has become clear the future isn't for them, that working class through trump and brexit has declared war on everything above them. After trump's victory the clintonites and SJWs are useless as always and will continue to worsen this class antagonism and push average people to nationalism, however the progressives see what is happening and Jill stein declared trump a lesser evil, bernie and warren say they're willing to work with trump to help working people insofar as he doesn't scapegoat others, and robert reich says progressives must take over the democratic party and mend the divide between white workers and minorities, women, etc. Orwell, a democratic socialist, has a great quote that describes the lifestylists and 'deconstructors' that came to characterize the left after the cold war, those who traded class for cultural war, economic change for demographic change [QUOTE]In addition to this there is the horrible — the really disquieting — prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.[/quote]
[QUOTE=vladnag;51349955]I can imagine this will be happening a lot, there's gonna be shit on both sides for a loonnngggg time.[/QUOTE] I've genuinely yet to see any actual evidence of trump people acting violent, robbing people or rioting beyond facebook statuses from people like this, which are basically "and then everyone clapped" and greentexts combined I don't doubt there's a few cases but certainly vastly outnumbers by shit like this. Tyranny of the morally justified indeed [QUOTE=w00tf1zh;51364570]Are you being sarcastic? Because it's true: only white people CAN be racist. Racism is the many problems that stem from the imperialist white empires' quest for dominion, and is heavily intertwined with the hierarchical structures in the postcolonial society. Sure, a black man can call you a 'honky' or even beat you up, [B]but at the end of the day, you still have a greater life standard than him.[/B] His 'racism' is a direct result of oppression, and thus more justifiable.[/QUOTE] I love the implication that black people will literally always live a worse life than you by virtue of being black. Those poor negro folk livin' in the bayou sure do need the help from their scandinavian knights, fighting the good fight right? Like, that hardened social warrior leading the protests at Mizzou is so oppressed, despite the fact that his dad is the President of Union Pacific. But because he's black, he's poor, living in squalor and oppressed by whitey by virtue of being black. Do you really not see your ridiculous doublethink here? I hope that $40,000 course was worth learning a bunch of bullshit that restricts your ability to have a career or even process basic information dude [QUOTE=Conscript;51364714] The two issues combined, the cultural and economic war on the native working class and (after 91) the far left being fundamentally incapable of filling the void, has directly set the stage for the rise of nationalism among those 'problematic' blue collar workers and their much maligned homogenous societies, lad culture, and rust belt siege mentality that look incompatible with 'progress of history' as conceived by bourgeois liberals that enjoy a neoliberal, post-national ideological hegemony after the collapse of fascism and communism, the so called end of history. As it has become clear the future isn't for them, that working class through trump and brexit has declared war on everything above them. [/QUOTE] You know that rings of the socialist/fascist story of the early 1900's. Is this a story that's going to repeat itself once every three generations? I feel like the historic models kinda had a reset after the industrial revolution, so any new models have to be taken from the last 150ish years. And already, that's a pretty distinct pattern that's starting to form.
[QUOTE=w00tf1zh;51364570]Are you being sarcastic? Because it's true: only white people CAN be racist. Racism is the many problems that stem from the imperialist white empires' quest for dominion, and is heavily intertwined with the hierarchical structures in the postcolonial society. [b]Sure, a black man can call you a 'honky' or even beat you up, but at the end of the day, you still have a greater life standard than him. His 'racism' is a direct result of oppression, and thus more justifiable.[/b][/QUOTE] What the fuck is wrong with you.
This is what happens when idiots co-opt the idea of privilege into something retarded. The fact that [i]on average[/i] black people have it worse in this country does not mean upper-middle-class black college students have it worse than rural white blue-collar workers, [i]let alone[/i] justify victimizing those people, w00tf1zh. 'Only white people can be racist' might be a useful definition in an academic context to distinguish between institutional oppression and personal bias. In the context you're using it, you're downplaying the severity of racially-motivated violence through redefinition.
The biggest issue social justice faces right now I think is a lack of communication like that. When you stick to jargon and speak as if the other person is a receptacle to dump unquestionable truth into, they kinda get defensive Which I think is one side effect of a lot of the analysis being out of Academia, Academia is very insular so they get used to dealing with only each-other. It's also nothing new, David Hume for example was complaining about how insular academics were back in the early 18th century.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51365364] 'Only white people can be racist' might be a useful definition in an academic context to distinguish between institutional oppression and personal bias.[/QUOTE] I really have to disagree there. Even then you're splitting up an abstract definition of a very tightly defined act, IE to treat someone differently in any capacity due to their race, and recontexualizes it in a collectivist and tangentially marxist way, while also keeping the correlation of racism in it's proper definition as an individual action, and blurs the line between the two, but still makes the assertion that racism from white people is some oligarchical marxist system of racial oppression, and racism from literally anyone else is purely an act by an individual. In giving racism different definitions for the same action from different races, you're being fucking racist. You want to believe in institutional racism in a country who's declaration of independence says "We hereby find it evident that all men are born free"? Fine. Just don't lay your harpoons on the whale of objective abstract concepts to tow your shitty little ideological boat through the waters of discourse. [QUOTE=GhillieBacca;51365046]What the fuck is wrong with you.[/QUOTE] Let's just enjoy the irony of the Swede lecturing us about racialized colonial oppression being a peculiarly endemic quality of white people. By virtue of existing he's proving himself wrong
Every time you step in the sun and your skin starts to make pigment, you can literally feel the privilege evaporating out of your pores.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51365484] You want to believe in institutional racism in a country who's constitution says "We hereby find it evident that all men are born free"? Fine. Just don't lay your harpoons on the whale of objective abstract concepts to tow your shitty little ideological boat through the waters of discourse.[/QUOTE] I'm not 100% sure about what you're citing but that's a pretty weak argument, and I hope I don't have to explain why, even just assuming that that's binding it's still a legalistic fallacy.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51350174][img]http://i.imgur.com/o0r3XHa.png[/img] I'm not saying you should automatically trust every claim made when there are clearly some people making it up, but going full Internet forensic detective on someone who turns out to have actually been the victim of a hate crime makes you look like a douche.[/QUOTE] Besides the lack of police report, I don't expect most people to have an eye for it, but if you've ever seen serious injuries or FX makeup, you'll notice a few important differences: Real blood, when spread thin, becomes very brown, very quickly. It becomes flakey, and if here is new blood or moisture added to the mix, it becomes lumpy and textured. This would be especially true for the hands and palms, and face. On the face, you can actually see it become flakey- however, it is not falling off or fragmenting like it should if it was touched / rubbed at all- in fact, the blood doesn't look very smeared ANYWHERE. Furthermore, if you look, his shirt is absolutely SOAKED with blood. The injury is supposedly on his head, but if a bottle was smashed into his face, then almost all the blood would run down his face and off of his chin- Most of the blood does this. There's another inconsistency, though; while a huge amount of the blood is flowing from his forehead, there also appear to be cuts above his hairline, as well as his right ear (???). If a single smash was the cause of the attack, this wouldn't happen. Still, this would flow to his chin. From there, it would drip down, NOT onto his neck then shirt- if it did end up going to his shirt, then it wouldn't be all the way up to the collar. Don't even get me started on the shirt, that is an INSANE amount of blood to lose. Not to mention the way that it's spread across the material, unless he was shot in the chest, that's totally unreasonable. Furthermore, his neck is almost entirely clean, which makes no sense given his shirt's condition. Also, nice perfectly white watch, my dude.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51365534]I'm not 100% sure about what you're citing but that's a pretty weak argument, and I hope I don't have to explain why, even just assuming that that's binding it's still a legalistic fallacy.[/QUOTE] Well i guess i danced around it, but my point was that if you want to make an argument for institutional racism, you go right ahead. But sink or swim on the merits of your arguments, and don't redefine the concept of racism, institutionalized or otherwise, to be race specific, because to do so is inherently dishonest, hypocritical and subversive. If you're right, why would you have to lie and misdirect the conversation to prove your point? In my experience, the modern understanding of institutional racism is filtered through neo-marxism, which makes racism a political act by the "class" of white people in a supposedly white society, which is why they need to redefine and split the very fundamental and simple concept of racism into racism and institutional racism, which is now an intrinsically racialized act. This, so it supports the belief in things like Flint being a racially oppressive bureaucracy, as opposed to the incompetence or even genuine racist attitudes of a few people, which doesn't support the marxist model of society. So simply by applying the redefinition of institutional/regular racism, what would be a bunch of corrupt, incompetent or individually nefarious politicians becomes proof of an oligarchical race based caste system that oppresses black people because whitey is the only race that can be racist. You can argue that institutional racism exists from an individualist standpoint, sure. But it has its foundations firmly rooted in a collectivist/marxist bed I should stop reading into that garbage so much. I understand it too well and it's fucking with my head. The TLDR version is just that marxism is just [I]the worst[/I]
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51365642]Well i guess i danced around it, but my point was that if you want to make an argument for institutional racism, you go right ahead. But sink or swim on the merits of your arguments, and don't redefine the concept of racism, institutionalized or otherwise, to be race specific, because to do so is inherently dishonest, hypocritical and subversive. If you're right, why would you have to lie and misdirect the conversation to prove your point? In my experience, the modern understanding of institutional racism is filtered through neo-marxism, which makes racism a political act by the "class" of white people in a supposedly white society, which is why they need to redefine and split the very fundamental and simple concept of racism into racism and institutional racism, which is now an intrinsically racialized act. This, so it supports the belief in things like Flint being a racially oppressive bureaucracy, as opposed to the incompetence or even genuine racist attitudes of a few people, which doesn't support the marxist model of society. So simply by applying the redefinition of institutional/regular racism, what would be a bunch of corrupt, incompetent or individually nefarious politicians becomes proof of an oligarchical race based caste system that oppresses black people because whitey is the only race that can be racist. You can argue that institutional racism exists from an individualist standpoint, sure. But it has its foundations firmly rooted in a collectivist/marxist bed I should stop reading into that garbage so much. I understand it too well and it's fucking with my head. The TLDR version is just that marxism is just [I]the worst[/I][/QUOTE] So you don't think trends and other things can be observed about groups or even society as a whole? That everyone is individuals with complete free will? That's pretty hard to maintain, the idea of total free will. Like the flint thing for example, I don't think it's actually terribly appropriate to call the people involved genuinely racist, but rather, they didn't give a damn because their biases led them to not be terribly concerned about the people of Flint, and then an opportunity to cut costs came along. When it comes to implicit bias, there's a whole lot of evidence for it and I haven't really come across any strong rebuttals. Which is the very concerning part and why it's important, because if it's true then pretty much everybody has it in some degree, and it's also something we don't often realize we're acting on. For example one of the arguments against the death penalty, is that it just so happens that prosecutors are much more willing to pursue it for black people than white people, for similar crimes. These prosecutors most likely aren't secret KKK members, but the culture around them and the news they see makes them see black people differently than they actually are.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51365739]So you don't think trends and other things can be observed about groups or even society as a whole? [/QUOTE] No, i just object to creating political beliefs that absolutely assign individuals to the averaged nature of their castes, which is what marxism is. Which is how you get shit like this [QUOTE=w00tf1zh;51364570]Are you being sarcastic? Because it's true: only white people CAN be racist. Racism is the many problems that stem from the imperialist white empires' quest for dominion, and is heavily intertwined with the hierarchical structures in the postcolonial society. [B]Sure, a black man can call you a 'honky' or even beat you up, but at the end of the day, you still have a greater life standard than him.[/B] His 'racism' is a direct result of oppression, and thus more justifiable.[/QUOTE] That's what marxism is, especially redeployed in a racial context by the faaaaaaaaaar left these days. Which is why i object to justifying the concept of "only white people can be racist" as an academic tool. Because it both rejects individual agency and makes racism a trait intrinsic to white people. [QUOTE] When it comes to implicit bias, there's a whole lot of evidence for it and I haven't really come across any strong rebuttals. Which is the very concerning part and why it's important, because if it's true then pretty much everybody has it in some degree, and it's also something we don't often realize we're acting on. For example one of the arguments against the death penalty, is that it just so happens that prosecutors are much more willing to pursue it for black people than white people, for similar crimes. These prosecutors most likely aren't secret KKK members, but the culture around them and the news they see makes them see black people differently than they actually are. [/QUOTE] You're missing my point with that though. Because an individual's biases will always be a thing, influenced by a variety of sources, sure. But individuals will always have free will. Even in NK there's dissidents and escapees, rejecting the state despite their surrounding culture. The difference here though is that i object to collectivism in opposition to individualistic values. Because marxist collectivism sees this [QUOTE]These prosecutors most likely aren't secret KKK members, but the culture around them and the news they see makes them see black people differently than they actually are. [/QUOTE] And by averaging all those views together, and asserts that [I]all[/I] prosecuters will act like this, due to overlapping demographics that "tell" you what that person is. Whereas individualists will say "there's a higher chance that they will act like this because of all these aggregate factors, but the individual prosecutor may or may not act in this way based on their own agency in conjunction with their surrounding's influences." And that is a very fundamental difference. It's like equality of oppertunity vs oppertunity of outcome. They outwardly sound and seem very similar but are in fact fundamentally different concepts with very different consequences
[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;51365046]What the fuck is wrong with you.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=catbarf;51365364]This is what happens when idiots co-opt the idea of privilege into something retarded. The fact that [i]on average[/i] black people have it worse in this country does not mean upper-middle-class black college students have it worse than rural white blue-collar workers, [i]let alone[/i] justify victimizing those people, w00tf1zh. 'Only white people can be racist' might be a useful definition in an academic context to distinguish between institutional oppression and personal bias. In the context you're using it, you're downplaying the severity of racially-motivated violence through redefinition.[/QUOTE] Wait, is he actually being serious? I thought he really was baiting.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51365914]No, i just object to creating political beliefs that absolutely assign individuals to the averaged nature of their castes, which is what marxism is. Which is how you get shit like this That's what marxism is, especially redeployed in a racial context by the faaaaaaaaaar left these days. Which is why i object to justifying the concept of "only white people can be racist" as an academic tool. Because it both rejects individual agency and makes racism a trait intrinsic to white people. You're missing my point with that though. Because an individual's biases will always be a thing, influenced by a variety of sources, sure. But individuals will always have free will. Even in NK there's dissidents and escapees, rejecting the state despite their surrounding culture. The difference here though is that i object to collectivism in opposition to individualistic values. Because marxist collectivism sees this And by averaging all those views together, and asserts that [I]all[/I] prosecuters will act like this, due to overlapping demographics that "tell" you what that person is. Whereas individualists will say "there's a higher chance that they will act like this because of all these aggregate factors, but the individual prosecutor may or may not act in this way based on their own agency in conjunction with their surrounding's influences." And that is a very fundamental difference. It's like equality of oppertunity vs oppertunity of outcome. They outwardly sound and seem very similar but are in fact fundamentally different concepts with very different consequences[/QUOTE] It's not asserting that all prosecutors are like that though, what you say is the case people are making, that they are more inclined to do it because of various factors. It's not that they always act on it. In the argument against the death penalty, people are saying we should do without because in this case it causes injustice, and while they'd still pursue harsher sentences without the death penalty, it's a much worse injustice to have somebody wind up dead because of their race. I say that implicit biases are dangerous because free will can be misleading, we often won't realize when we're acting on a bias. That's why it's important to become aware of what biases exist and to be mindful of our actions that affect other people. Full-on marxists are pretty rare even among social justice types, and honestly I haven't even seen marxists that look at things so absolutely. When it comes to class, yeah, because you can leave a class and become part of another. But not quite race or gender. People don't always belong to the average nature of their group. It's pretty self-evident that some women will be in a superior position compared to most men, some black people in a superior position to most white people, etc.. This was even the case in the Victorian era where it was particularly to be a woman, there's evidence of several women voting, when most men even couldn't. I've really only heard very on the fringe people speak about it in such absolute terms, if you ask feminists if patriarchy put every man in a superior position to every woman, most ones that are actually willing to have a conversation with other people will pretty much say no. Equality of opportunity and outcome are pretty self-evidently very different, unless perhaps someone was a very hardcore everything has been determined since the big bang kind of guy. I think it might give the impression that people think they're the same because of affirmative action and programs like it somewhat doing both, but affirmative action is supposed to act as a counter-weight to historical factors, reducing the inequality of opportunity over time by forcing an equal outcome, since IQ, and education are very tied to socioeconomic class. I disagree with affirmative action though (one of the two big issues other left-leaning people would prolly hang me for lol) and see it as just a poor band-aid so I'm not really going to defend it terribly hard.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51364850] You know that rings of the socialist/fascist story of the early 1900's. Is this a story that's going to repeat itself once every three generations? I feel like the historic models kinda had a reset after the industrial revolution, so any new models have to be taken from the last 150ish years. And already, that's a pretty distinct pattern that's starting to form.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. From what I can see, capitalism revolutionizes the track of history but also creates incredible instability and inequality. We've had a lot of rapid change in the last couple decades and also created essentially a new lost generation, the millenials, who are either more right wing or left wing than their parents. I know plenty of people that sympathize with nationalism or socialism. We basically grew up just in time to have capitalism resume its political track before the 20s. Neoclassical economics is the norm and we've shifted economically to the right, ideological opposition to liberalism and the ideological battles of the 20th century are over, and so no western government really has a reason to treat its lower classes very well or do anything about concentration of wealth (or control of media). Unions and labor movements are gone, both the left and right are pretty middle class and global-minded. I mean the name says it all, neoliberalism. I mean, polarization took off with the war and then the economic downturn. That's a historical model itself lol In america it goes back before the industrial revolution in one way, just because it's a republic originally set up for property owners. So Trump being this authoritarian populist that'll reign terror on wealthy elites kind of reminds you of caesar and his relationship to patricians and plebs. I feel like if our military wasn't stuck overseas they'd be much more of a political threat Everything feels like a Weimar period for our republic though Also if you think about it America's story is basically a protracted class and race conflict that liberal individualism, civic identity, and a middle class tried to overcome. But then the money dried up, and we have the burden of being an arsenal of democracy
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51366585]He was, and too many people replied to him and gave him the satisfaction he was looking for[/QUOTE] Except that you can actually find people like him in real life?? I've seen quite a few people who justify immigrants behaving like apes because "the western world deserves it for all the oppression and for ruining their homes".
[QUOTE=yff;51366648]Except that you can actually find people like him in real life?? I've seen quite a few people who justify immigrants behaving like apes because "the western world deserves it for all the oppression and for ruining their homes".[/QUOTE] You can find people like anything in real life. It doesn't mean they're powerful or it's a popular viewpoint Many of the incidents for example of teachers saying stuff as explicit as that, end in reprimand or a firing. On the other hand I learned lots of historical revisionism from the lovely Texas education system about how slavery wasn't really all that bad, the civil war was about states rights and not slavery, etc.. Education is shitty in the US especially
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51366041]It's not asserting that all prosecutors are like that though, what you say is the case people are making, that they are more inclined to do it because of various factors. It's not that they always act on it. In the argument against the death penalty, people are saying we should do without because in this case it causes injustice, and while they'd still pursue harsher sentences without the death penalty, it's a much worse injustice to have somebody wind up dead because of their race. I say that implicit biases are dangerous because free will can be misleading, we often won't realize when we're acting on a bias. That's why it's important to become aware of what biases exist and to be mindful of our actions that affect other people. [/QUOTE] Ok sure, i agree. But what the fuck does that have to do with me objecting to the phrase "Only white people can be racist" on grounds that it has it's roots in neo marxist cultural bullshit designed to justify anti white double think by SJWs in acadamia? I feel like you're just disagreeing with/discussing the things i've said for it's own sake and have forgotten what i said in the first place [QUOTE] Full-on marxists are pretty rare even among social justice types, and honestly I haven't even seen marxists that look at things so absolutely. When it comes to class, yeah, because you can leave a class and become part of another. But not quite race or gender. [/QUOTE] Absolutely not true. Intersection feminism, which is where all this stupid shit is brewed, is fundamentally marxist. But instead of using the socioeconomic castes to appraise societal power structures, it's applied to racial/gender/whatever demographics. To be an SJW is to be marxist, consciously or not. Likewise to be an SJW is to be obsessed with equality of outcome at any expense by nature. This is not some minor only a few people buy into it type of thing. [video=youtube;cYpELqKZ02Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYpELqKZ02Q[/video] Here's the TLDR version on how that came to be [QUOTE=thelurker1234;51366668]You can find people like anything in real life. It doesn't mean they're powerful or it's a popular viewpoint [/QUOTE] Also absolutely untrue. This is the dominant worldview in liberal arts/gender studies/whatever the fuck departments in universities all over the west. To challenge the ideology is [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFcn775CqAg"]guaranteed to get you in shit[/URL] [QUOTE=Conscript;51366297] But then the money dried up, and we have the burden of being an arsenal of democracy[/QUOTE] Arsenal of democracy. I quite like that
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;51365623]Besides the lack of police report, I don't expect most people to have an eye for it, but if you've ever seen serious injuries or FX makeup, you'll notice a few important differences: Real blood, when spread thin, becomes very brown, very quickly. It becomes flakey, and if here is new blood or moisture added to the mix, it becomes lumpy and textured. This would be especially true for the hands and palms, and face. On the face, you can actually see it become flakey- however, it is not falling off or fragmenting like it should if it was touched / rubbed at all- in fact, the blood doesn't look very smeared ANYWHERE. Furthermore, if you look, his shirt is absolutely SOAKED with blood. The injury is supposedly on his head, but if a bottle was smashed into his face, then almost all the blood would run down his face and off of his chin- Most of the blood does this. There's another inconsistency, though; while a huge amount of the blood is flowing from his forehead, there also appear to be cuts above his hairline, as well as his right ear (???). If a single smash was the cause of the attack, this wouldn't happen. Still, this would flow to his chin. From there, it would drip down, NOT onto his neck then shirt- if it did end up going to his shirt, then it wouldn't be all the way up to the collar. Don't even get me started on the shirt, that is an INSANE amount of blood to lose. Not to mention the way that it's spread across the material, unless he was shot in the chest, that's totally unreasonable. Furthermore, his neck is almost entirely clean, which makes no sense given his shirt's condition. Also, nice perfectly white watch, my dude.[/QUOTE] Not to mention the obvious lack of any trauma. Any wound capable of producing that much blood would leave swelling and a pretty obvious change in skin tone, plus there would also be some pus forming and not just blood. That is one of the most horrible attempts I've seen of makeup, and anyone who believed it for a second is, to put it bluntly, a moron.
[QUOTE=Guriosity;51364612]Can we kill off the bad eggs of both sides? Or lock em up? Something?? [/QUOTE] Eighth Amendment [QUOTE=Guriosity;51364612] Is there a way to objectively define what makes a bad egg despite what ideal they adhere to?[/QUOTE] Brandenburg Test
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51364581]If you're going to bait, try to be a little more subtle[/QUOTE] its sad but there ARE people that think exactly that way that "just because you have 'higher life standards'" you automatically are the only race capable of racism
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.