In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On July 27 2016 04:00 VayneAuthority wrote: [quote]
this quote should be put in the tumblr hall of fame.
Next time I see a black person ill say due to them being uneducated, they are clearly exercising their ignorance due to black underprivilege. I'll make sure to call him out on it! definitely won't be racist as I now can see.
On July 27 2016 03:56 VayneAuthority wrote: [quote]
it always makes me facepalm when I see people complain about racism but then approve of any racism towards white people.
Here's an example of racism against white people:
A white guy innocently walks down the street, and a few black guys across the street decide to call the white guy names and/ or beat him up because he's white.
This is not an example of racism against white people:
Person 1: Blacks should stop crying about what they have to deal with on a daily basis. It's not that bad. Person 2: Excuse me, Person 1, but you're white and apparently not aware of the prejudice that blacks have to deal with on a daily basis, despite the fact that it's well-documented, historic, and systemic. Your position of ignorance and dismissal of other people's racial struggles is something called white privilege; you are fortunate enough to not need to deal with these experiences that others deal with, but you shouldn't belittle them.
Learn the difference.
thats your made up tumblr version of what racism is.
I didn't make up the term racism or white privilege, and they're well understood in sociological contexts. I strongly recommend some general reading on the subject of the latter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege There are ~150 additional citations at the bottom of that page, if you're interested in learning more.
On July 27 2016 04:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Person 2: Excuse me, Person 1, but you're white and apparently not aware of the prejudice that blacks have to deal with on a daily basis, despite the fact that it's well-documented, historic, and systemic. Your position of ignorance and dismissal of other people's racial struggles is something called white privilege; you are fortunate enough to not need to deal with these experiences that others deal with, but you shouldn't belittle them.
That is 100% racist though. White privilege as currently defined in contemporary political discourse is racial original sin and collective guilt wrapped into one. Racist as hell.
They could avoid this by dropping the bullshit and going back to what it actually is and what it used to be called: discrimination. White privilege is discrimination by and for whites. Simple as that.
Drop the racist pop pyschology about how whites can't understand or cannot have the proper empathy and all the other racist bullshit that is simply a way to tell white people to shut up and accept the political opinions of non-whites as superior.
White people absolutely can be empathetic towards other races, but to be immediately dismissive and assume that minorities are overstating their well-documented issues of dealing with prejudice is a position of blissful ignorance. No one is saying that non-whites are superior; in fact, the point is that non-whites are frequently viewed as automatically inferior due to bigotry.
wew lad trying to rewrite extremely easy to look up clear cut things, interesting
racism ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/Submit noun the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
There is no picking and choosing, it is all negative/positive bias aka my definition, not your made up one.
The meaning of words is not set in stone and citing a dictionary isn’t going to win this argument. The discussion of privilege within a demographic and region is completely valid and real. Privilege is regional and based on the dominate demographic in that culture. White privilege does not exist in Japan. But is very real in the US.
ok so your position is words dont mean anything. guess ill just use the N word whenever I feel like it, its meaning isnt set in stone right?
Ok, so you do realize that the word you just cited has different meanings based on who uses it and who they are saying it to, right?
No it doesn't. No one uses the hard R word in any context except one.
Yeah it does, sorry. The N-bomb means different things depending on who says it to whom. White as the driven snow guys like me don’t get to use it.
the word ending with A and the word ending with ER are very different. Not the same word.
On July 27 2016 04:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Can we please not have the white guilt seminar again
Please
Our new boy who complains about everyone’s posting style need to stop calling people who want to talk about white privilege racist and trolling people. If someone doesn’t agree, cool. Don’t be an asshole and call people racist for talking about white privilege.
Oh please. I was just pointing out the inconsistency of your far left butt buddy. I couldnt care less if anyone is racist towards me or anybody, i just find hypocrites/double standards the most amusing parts of life.
If it doesn’t’ bother you, don’t post. People are trying to have a discussion here and you are derailing it with your not caring.
except I didn't start this, statros spear did with his blatant racism. Then dark whatever plasma guy chimes in with his double standard and I found it amusing.
On July 27 2016 04:46 TheYango wrote: This thread has become a weird place where shitposters from various Liquid community sub-sites come and shitpost together on sensitive issues.
As someone who frequents multiple parts of the Liquid community, it's a very weird experience.
I don’t mind it some much if we could not have the same debate about racism twice a month when someone new decides to enlighten us on what racism really is.
On July 27 2016 04:46 TheYango wrote: This thread has become a weird place where shitposters from various Liquid community sub-sites come and shitpost together on sensitive issues.
As someone who frequents multiple parts of the Liquid community, it's a very weird experience.
This thread took a bad turn yesterday and hasn't recovered yet. Hopefully the DNC will right the ship a little.
On July 27 2016 04:46 TheYango wrote: This thread has become a weird place where shitposters from various Liquid community sub-sites come and shitpost together on sensitive issues.
As someone who frequents multiple parts of the Liquid community, it's a very weird experience.
I don’t mind it some much if we could not have the same debate about racism twice a month when someone new decides to enlighten us on what racism really is.
probably because you try to call people out on it and then it gets thrown back in your face and then you throw a fit that people aren't agreeing with you.
On July 27 2016 03:16 Gorsameth wrote: For what its worth I find the fact you can vote without an ID to be mind boggling.
However, if you require people to ID themselves the states should also work to ensure that every adult has access to an ID, You cant have voter identification without easy access to ID.
I've heard your sentiment from Europeans before, and this is the problem.
Requiring ID to vote seems logical, but you also have to remember that the U.S. government (well, mostly the state governments) are actually atrocious at doing most things, particularly anything handling ID's/driver's licenses. Ask almost any American and you'll hear about how utterly horrendous the DMV is. ID's are actually quite hard to get, cost a decent chunk of money (over $20 in Minnesota to just get an ID card, which is a lot of money for the poor), and are in very inconvenient locations. They also frequently tell you that the documents that you have aren't valid and that you can't pay with a certain type of tender (I've seen various government centers turn down checks, credit/debit cards, and cash).
I truly believe that the sheer incompetence of the average U.S. state government is a world wonder all on its own. It's utterly mind-blowing.
$20 for an ID. We pay €50 here mate. People not voting because they can't buy an ID is a non issue at least Ive never heard it over here. Government here is pretty atrocious as well. Our municipality is only open on 3 morning (like nobody has to work lol) although not as bad as some of the examples you gave.
First, it can cost considerably more than $25 if you need to buy/ obtain certain documents as prerequisite criteria to obtaining a voter ID.
And second, the ability of voting is a constitutional right, afforded to us by the 15th Amendment. You don't lose your freedom of speech or religion or right to bare arms if you have no money; you shouldn't lose your right to vote either.
My point was that it's way more expensive in The Netherlands and poor people can get an ID just fine. It's a non issue. It's also not taking away your freedom to vote. You just have to be able to ID yourself. Considering what is at stake that is pretty logical.
You can make the argument that Republicans want ID laws to limit minority voting and that is fine but I was calling out the argument that the costs of IDs are prohibitive for poor people. We have it over here and it works.
On July 27 2016 03:16 Gorsameth wrote: For what its worth I find the fact you can vote without an ID to be mind boggling.
However, if you require people to ID themselves the states should also work to ensure that every adult has access to an ID, You cant have voter identification without easy access to ID.
I've heard your sentiment from Europeans before, and this is the problem.
Requiring ID to vote seems logical, but you also have to remember that the U.S. government (well, mostly the state governments) are actually atrocious at doing most things, particularly anything handling ID's/driver's licenses. Ask almost any American and you'll hear about how utterly horrendous the DMV is. ID's are actually quite hard to get, cost a decent chunk of money (over $20 in Minnesota to just get an ID card, which is a lot of money for the poor), and are in very inconvenient locations. They also frequently tell you that the documents that you have aren't valid and that you can't pay with a certain type of tender (I've seen various government centers turn down checks, credit/debit cards, and cash).
I truly believe that the sheer incompetence of the average U.S. state government is a world wonder all on its own. It's utterly mind-blowing.
$20 for an ID. We pay €50 here mate. People not voting because they can't buy an ID is a non issue at least Ive never heard it over here. Government here is pretty atrocious as well. Our municipality is only open on 3 morning (like nobody has to work lol) although not as bad as some of the examples you gave.
First, it can cost considerably more than $25 if you need to buy/ obtain certain documents as prerequisite criteria to obtaining a voter ID.
And second, the ability of voting is a constitutional right, afforded to us by the 15th Amendment. You don't lose your freedom of speech or religion or right to bare arms if you have no money; you shouldn't lose your right to vote either.
My point was that it's way more expensive in The Netherlands and poor people can get an ID just fine. It's a non issue. It's also not taking away your freedom to vote. You just have to be able to ID yourself. Considering what is at stake that is pretty logical.
You can make the argument that Republicans want ID laws to limit minority voting and that is fine but I was calling out the argument that the costs of IDs are prohibitive for poor people. We have it over here and it works.
The problem in the US is that we are huge and some areas are better about IDs than others. There was awhile in my state where if you lost your SS card, license and birth certificate, it was impossible to legally get any of those back. Luckily, local town clerks would just issue a new birth certificate if your parents would sign an affidavit. But that wasn’t supposed to happen.
Edit: Bless KadaverBB. We now to back to our regular shit posting and passive aggression.
On July 27 2016 04:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Can we please not have the white guilt seminar again
Please
Our new boy who complains about everyone’s posting style need to stop calling people who want to talk about white privilege racist and trolling people. If someone doesn’t agree, cool. Don’t be an asshole and call people racist for talking about white privilege.
Oh please. I was just pointing out the inconsistency of your far left butt buddy. I couldnt care less if anyone is racist towards me or anybody, i just find hypocrites/double standards the most amusing parts of life.
If it doesn’t’ bother you, don’t post. People are trying to have a discussion here and you are derailing it with your not caring.
except I didn't start this, statros spear did with his blatant racism. Then dark whatever plasma guy chimes in with his double standard and I found it amusing.
Glad to be of service But the fact that you're trying to argue that "nigga" vs. "nigger" is a different comparison than "how black people say/ use 'nigger' " and "how other people say/ use 'nigger' " because of the words' endings is just hilarious. It's ebonics, and any intellectually honest person understands the historical context behind the word. You're really grasping at straws at this point, when Plansix's point was just that context, nuance, and connotation matter with words.
Anyways, it seems you're locked out and I should probably take a break for now. Have a good day
This must worry the democrats like crazy. The democratic top probably knows what is in the mails and what more could potentially come out. They cant come out with it themselves,they could come out with things "the enemy" might not even know. All they can do is prepare a possible response and just wait and pray that this is everything.
Don't see how all this will help trump,on the contrary.
You attacked him for 'white privilege' among other things as a means of dismissing him and silencing his ability to respond because he's 'white privileged'
The concept of "white privilege" isn't racist. I don't think the English language has a word for how utterly stupid that statement is. And yes, the most polite way I can phrase that is "stupid". It's a sad conservative joke by white people that still don't understand that you aren't being discriminated against when society no longer gives you a leg up against all other races.
I don't support laws that restrict anyone's ability to vote. I think all citizens should have the right to vote. Continue flaming people and making shit up and calling me lazy and dishonest
You are advocating for laws that require individuals to provide a certain document at the polling booth in order to vote.
This is, by definition, a restriction on voting when compared to our current system.
About the point that voter fraud doesn't exist, that's like saying 'I lock my door and no one breaks into my home. Therefore, why do I keep locking my door? I'm locking my door to prevent a crime that doesn't exist. I should just stop locking my door.'
Stop fucking flaming people
I don't need to prove a negative. The onus is still on you to prove that there is a reason to implement these burdens on someone's constitutional right to vote.
Conventions used to be a place of knockdown, drag out fights about who would be the nominee. One took 17 days of debates and discussion. But the people came out the other side with a plan they all agreed on in the end.
It would seem the California delegation of Bernie supporters plans on not being involved with that process. They know they can’t have what they want and refuse to compromise. Since the entire point of the convention is to compromise and get as much as you can, I wonder if they will remain all 4 days.
On July 27 2016 05:14 Plansix wrote: Conventions used to be a place of knockdown, drag out fights about who would be the nominee. One took 17 days of debates and discussion. But the people came out the other side with a plan they all agreed on in the end.
It would seem the California delegation of Bernie supporters plans on not being involved with that process. They know they can’t have what they want and refuse to compromise. Since the entire point of the convention is to compromise and get as much as you can, I wonder if they will remain all 4 days.
If petulant children want to take their ball and go home, let them.
That's not how the world gets shit done. If you are really determined change and not just "sticking it to the man", you'd actually work towards progress.
I vehemently supported Sanders against Clinton and yet I'm embarrassed by how some of these people are acting.
On July 27 2016 05:14 Plansix wrote: Conventions used to be a place of knockdown, drag out fights about who would be the nominee. One took 17 days of debates and discussion. But the people came out the other side with a plan they all agreed on in the end.
It would seem the California delegation of Bernie supporters plans on not being involved with that process. They know they can’t have what they want and refuse to compromise. Since the entire point of the convention is to compromise and get as much as you can, I wonder if they will remain all 4 days.
If petulant children want to take their ball and go home, let them.
That's not how the world gets shit done. If you are really determined change and not just "sticking it to the man", you'd actually work towards progress.
I vehemently supported Sanders against Clinton and yet I'm embarrassed by how some of these people are acting.
As some point it stops being a protest against the man and is just a protest against the process of compromise and democracy. I see little difference between them and the tea party members I mock for putting their ideologically purity over making things better for people in their states.
There are few things as controversial in American political life as voting rights. The issue surged to the fore this past week in Veasey v. Abbott when the Fifth Circuit, by a 9-6 vote, delayed the enforcement of Texas Law SB 14. This law limited the forms of photo identification that could be used when registering to vote to state driver’s licenses, U.S. passports, military photo IDs, concealed weapon permits, and U.S citizenship certificates with photographs. Although the law provided for some exceptions for poor and disabled persons, it has been attacked as the most restrictive voting rights law in the United States.
A variety of plaintiffs mounted both a constitutional and a statutory challenge to the law—the former under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the latter under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended in 1982. The plaintiffs’ burdens under the two provisions are distinct. It has long been accepted under the 1976 Supreme Court decision in Washington v. Davis that an equal protection challenge to any law cannot rest simply on proof that the law has a disparate impact by race, but rather, must show that there was some intention on the part of the lawmakers to abridge those rights on the grounds of race.
In contrast, the 1982 Amendments to the 1965 Voting Rights Act gravitated toward a stricter standard by prohibiting any law “which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” That standard is then further refined in ways calculated to invite litigation, taking into account the possibility that the “political process is not equally open to participation by members of a protected class”—code for minority members, who have “less opportunity to participate in the political process.”
The issue of the constitutionality of photo IDs arose in 2008 in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, where the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, upheld an Indiana ID law that required voters to show either state or federal picture ID by denying that such a requirement unduly infringed on anyone’s right to vote. The Court only looked at the constitutional challenge and did not consider the 1982 Voting Rights Amendments, presumably because none of the parties thought it could support a claim. Instead, Justice Stevens wrote that the law was neutral on its face, and had a permissible justification of preventing voter fraud that could upset the results of individual elections and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.
So the corpse of Bill Clinton isn't the final speaker tonight. No, the DNC is going to trot out the BLM mothers instead to be final speakers. What could possibly go wrong?
edit: tbh he should have just left quietly. Endorsing her is getting embarrassing.
I sense that he was promised something significant conditional upon Hillary winning the election.
As GH put it, Bernie will do what he must, and so should his supporters.
Bernie doesn't want Trump to win, simple as that. He stands for his platform and while Hillary is not the candidate he wants he knows that Trump will destroy what Bernie seeks to accomplish.
On July 27 2016 05:27 xDaunt wrote: So the corpse of Bill Clinton isn't the final speaker tonight. No, the DNC is going to trot out the BLM mothers instead to be final speakers. What could possibly go wrong?
On July 27 2016 05:27 xDaunt wrote: So the corpse of Bill Clinton isn't the final speaker tonight. No, the DNC is going to trot out the BLM mothers instead to be final speakers. What could possibly go wrong?
They could call Donald Trump a criminal and say he worships the devil. And a Muslim for no reason what so ever.
I’m sure it will be fine with only a small amount of pearl clutching.
EPT
But the fact that you're trying to argue that "nigga" vs. "nigger" is a different comparison than "how black people say/ use 'nigger' " and "how other people say/ use 'nigger' " because of the words' endings is just hilarious. It's ebonics, and any intellectually honest person understands the historical context behind the word. You're really grasping at straws at this point, when Plansix's point was just that context, nuance, and connotation matter with words. 
