|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 November 12 2016 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:52 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 22:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected. Hardly. Trump won more of every minority than Mittens.More blacks, more hispanics, more asians more other. Trumps biggest gains were amongst those who voted Obama in 08 & 12.Clinton lost in the rust belt.PA, MI, WI.For economic reasons solely. Please don't make this about race/gender/sexuality when it was clearly about poor economic conditions in the rust belt. If there was no racial factor involved, how do you explain this? Resentment expressing itself after years contempt towards poor white people. "Any form of contempt, if it intervenes in politics, prepares or introduces fascism". Seriously deep down I shake my head at the stupidity of all this : if you don't have a universalist discourse, egalitarian and inclusive for everyone, you always end up promoting autoritarian backlash. What the "left" lost is its intelligence in all this. In the US, only the black were intelligent enough to promote such discourse : both the black panther party (with someone like Boby Seale) and the MLK side had a positive discourse towards poor white people (altho the black panthers were inaudible).
Yeah sure, the guy who said “go pick cotton” to some black dude is still a poor white victim, persecuted by an oppressive antiracism which makes him feel guilty. Universal love and free hugs got this!
|
On November 12 2016 18:01 Incognoto wrote:
I see the TPP is dead in its tracks now?
From what I understand, this trade agreement wasn't profitable to Americans in a domestic sense, but it may have helped American influence in the Asian region. That's the trade-off there.
Is there anyone able to give their own analysis on that problem?
I gave my analysis of the issue a few pages back, though it does focus on the domestic side more than on the question of what there is to gain from the Asian countries. I think this article gives the "Obama perspective" in a way that does mostly answer your questions.
|
On November 12 2016 23:09 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:On November 12 2016 22:52 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 22:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected. Hardly. Trump won more of every minority than Mittens.More blacks, more hispanics, more asians more other. Trumps biggest gains were amongst those who voted Obama in 08 & 12.Clinton lost in the rust belt.PA, MI, WI.For economic reasons solely. Please don't make this about race/gender/sexuality when it was clearly about poor economic conditions in the rust belt. If there was no racial factor involved, how do you explain this? Resentment expressing itself after years contempt towards poor white people. "Any form of contempt, if it intervenes in politics, prepares or introduces fascism". Seriously deep down I shake my head at the stupidity of all this : if you don't have a universalist discourse, egalitarian and inclusive for everyone, you always end up promoting autoritarian backlash. What the "left" lost is its intelligence in all this. In the US, only the black were intelligent enough to promote such discourse : both the black panther party (with someone like Boby Seale) and the MLK side had a positive discourse towards poor white people (altho the black panthers were inaudible). Yeah sure, the guy who said “go pick cotton” to some black dude is still a poor white victim, persecuted by an oppressive antiracism which makes him feel guilty. Universal love and free hugs got this!
What are you even talking about ...
|
On November 12 2016 23:08 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 23:06 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2016 23:05 WhiteDog wrote:On November 12 2016 23:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2016 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:On November 12 2016 22:52 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 22:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected. Hardly. Trump won more of every minority than Mittens.More blacks, more hispanics, more asians more other. Trumps biggest gains were amongst those who voted Obama in 08 & 12.Clinton lost in the rust belt.PA, MI, WI.For economic reasons solely. Please don't make this about race/gender/sexuality when it was clearly about poor economic conditions in the rust belt. If there was no racial factor involved, how do you explain this? Resentment expressing itself after years contempt towards poor white people. That doesn't make any sense. In any form. Resentment of the more powerful and numerous against the poorer minority? OK. Sure. In which dream are you to actually believe uneducated white are dominant. They are certainly dominant over poorer minorities in their local area. Give me stats. I just had this discussion like ten or so pages ago. Please show me how uneducated white are dominant. To correct you : they are not dominant over poorer minorities, they are just in better shape than the black population because they are heavily discriminated in the US. That's it, from a certain perspective, one could argue that they are in a worst shape than latinos. Show nested quote +How exactly are poor white people suffereng contempt any more that poor people in USA are generally treated with contempt? How does this take effect that they are taking out their fustrations on minorities? Because people still argue that "white" is a decisive advantage, that goes with privilege and all, which contredict entirely the actual experience of many americans who are in a downward social trajectory. Or do you believe that equality can be achieve by pinning down all white people ?
Last time i checked the top 10 poorest counties in the US were majority white, most were in Kentucky and West Virginia.
These are not privileged people.Strangely enough the crime rates in these areas was below the national average.Overall they are decent people but they are doing it tough believe me.
|
On November 12 2016 23:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 22:52 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 22:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected. Hardly. Trump won more of every minority than Mittens.More blacks, more hispanics, more asians more other. Trumps biggest gains were amongst those who voted Obama in 08 & 12.Clinton lost in the rust belt.PA, MI, WI.For economic reasons solely. Please don't make this about race/gender/sexuality when it was clearly about poor economic conditions in the rust belt. If there was no racial factor involved, how do you explain this? 340 million people. I'm sure you've seen the video of the three African Americans beating up the old white guy because he voted Trump? I have and I'm not going to judge a whole race due to that. From what I understand the states I mentioned that flipped have a fairly low hispanic population.
The problem with this NotAllX argument is that I never said that all X behave like this. You want to completely discard the racial factor, while focusing only on the class one. Things are not that easy. An election is certainly not single-factor. Why is the KKK openly rejoicing if it's only about the Rust Belt? Why are we already witnessing a rise in that kind of racist aggression, just like after the Brexit? Class played a role, the personality of the Democrat candidate played a role, race played a role, etc.
|
People who talk about race non stop and necessarily link the caracteristic "white" with certain benefit are, usually, minority coming from the middle class who are educated. In their actual bubble (upper middle class to upper class living in urban area) the caracteristic "white" is an actual privilege, and so they believe all white, in all class, must have privilege. It's the political movement of a dominated fraction of the dominants.
|
On November 12 2016 23:16 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 23:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 22:52 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 22:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected. Hardly. Trump won more of every minority than Mittens.More blacks, more hispanics, more asians more other. Trumps biggest gains were amongst those who voted Obama in 08 & 12.Clinton lost in the rust belt.PA, MI, WI.For economic reasons solely. Please don't make this about race/gender/sexuality when it was clearly about poor economic conditions in the rust belt. If there was no racial factor involved, how do you explain this? 340 million people. I'm sure you've seen the video of the three African Americans beating up the old white guy because he voted Trump? I have and I'm not going to judge a whole race due to that. From what I understand the states I mentioned that flipped have a fairly low hispanic population. The problem with this NotAllX argument is that I never said that all X behave like this. You want to completely discard the racial factor, while focusing only on the class one. Things are not that easy. An election is certainly not single-factor. Why is the KKK openly rejoicing if it's only about the Rust Belt? Why are we already witnessing a rise in that kind of racist aggression, just like after the Brexit? Class played a role, the personality of the Democrat candidate played a role, race played a role, etc.
It's very basic.The KKK is rejoicing because the candidate who wanted to increase islamic refugee intake by 600% lost.Does that mean everyone who disagreed with increasing the islamic intake by 600% is a KKK nazi? How many registered members does the KKK have now anyway a few thousand? Irrelevant organisation.
BTW not all KKK are rejoicing right now.This KKK grand dragon supported Clinton.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L65RBwrtOeQ
|
On November 12 2016 23:08 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 23:06 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2016 23:05 WhiteDog wrote:On November 12 2016 23:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2016 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:On November 12 2016 22:52 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 22:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected. Hardly. Trump won more of every minority than Mittens.More blacks, more hispanics, more asians more other. Trumps biggest gains were amongst those who voted Obama in 08 & 12.Clinton lost in the rust belt.PA, MI, WI.For economic reasons solely. Please don't make this about race/gender/sexuality when it was clearly about poor economic conditions in the rust belt. If there was no racial factor involved, how do you explain this? Resentment expressing itself after years contempt towards poor white people. That doesn't make any sense. In any form. Resentment of the more powerful and numerous against the poorer minority? OK. Sure. In which dream are you to actually believe uneducated white are dominant. They are certainly dominant over poorer minorities in their local area. Give me stats. I just had this discussion like ten or so pages ago. Please show me how uneducated white are dominant. To correct you : they are not dominant over poorer minorities, they are just in better shape than the black population because this population suffer heavy discriminations in the US. That's it, from a certain perspective, one could argue that they are in a worst shape than latinos. Show nested quote +How exactly are poor white people suffereng contempt any more that poor people in USA are generally treated with contempt? How does this take effect that they are taking out their fustrations on minorities? Because people still argue that "white" is a decisive advantage, that goes with privilege and all, which contredict entirely the actual experience of many americans who are in a downward social trajectory. Or do you believe that equality can be achieve by pinning down all white people ? Here is your argument in a nutshell (putting aside actual statistical facts) : poor white are one-eyed when poor black are blind, so them losing the second eye is no problem. You simply make no sense. In any regard. Stop this strange "dominant" strawman. It is entirely your own word. I don't beleive there is a white privelege or whatever Americanisms, but you seem to be entirely arguing on an emotive appeal over some issue that you have that is not relavent to whatever we were previously discussing. But it's ok. I understand that you are expressing your resentment, and you support to do so under such a manner.
|
will the police decide a Clinton supporter angry about the election committing an act of vandalism is a terrorist?
|
If he's caught with explosives or other items indicative of a terrorist act, I assume so
|
On November 12 2016 23:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 23:08 WhiteDog wrote:On November 12 2016 23:06 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2016 23:05 WhiteDog wrote:On November 12 2016 23:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2016 22:59 WhiteDog wrote:On November 12 2016 22:52 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 22:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:
[quote]
MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected. Hardly. Trump won more of every minority than Mittens.More blacks, more hispanics, more asians more other. Trumps biggest gains were amongst those who voted Obama in 08 & 12.Clinton lost in the rust belt.PA, MI, WI.For economic reasons solely. Please don't make this about race/gender/sexuality when it was clearly about poor economic conditions in the rust belt. If there was no racial factor involved, how do you explain this? Resentment expressing itself after years contempt towards poor white people. That doesn't make any sense. In any form. Resentment of the more powerful and numerous against the poorer minority? OK. Sure. In which dream are you to actually believe uneducated white are dominant. They are certainly dominant over poorer minorities in their local area. Give me stats. I just had this discussion like ten or so pages ago. Please show me how uneducated white are dominant. To correct you : they are not dominant over poorer minorities, they are just in better shape than the black population because this population suffer heavy discriminations in the US. That's it, from a certain perspective, one could argue that they are in a worst shape than latinos. How exactly are poor white people suffereng contempt any more that poor people in USA are generally treated with contempt? How does this take effect that they are taking out their fustrations on minorities? Because people still argue that "white" is a decisive advantage, that goes with privilege and all, which contredict entirely the actual experience of many americans who are in a downward social trajectory. Or do you believe that equality can be achieve by pinning down all white people ? Here is your argument in a nutshell (putting aside actual statistical facts) : poor white are one-eyed when poor black are blind, so them losing the second eye is no problem. You simply make no sense. In any regard. Stop this strange "dominant" strawman. It is entirely your own word. I don't beleive there is a white privelege or whatever Americanisms, but you seem to be entirely arguing on an emotive appeal over some issue that you have that is not relavent to whatever we were previously discussing. But it's ok. I understand that you are expressing your resentment, and you support to do so under such a manner.
Argument ad hominem and ad personam. Good job. You always respond stupidly catmouse, how about arguing for once.
And I'm not even "white", I don't have any resentment towards anything, except maybe stupidity.
|
It's not an "ad Hominem" to point out that you are not replying to me, but are discussing something else entirely. As for "ad personam" I certainly hope so! Please try to read up on what words mean before applying them. Shame you aren't replying to me "ad personam" but instead are talking about a strawman. You are arguing that mass rascists incidents in USA are fine, because "poor white people" in USA feel they are living under contempt? I have never said poor white people are dominant. I have never said equality can be acheived by pinning down white people. In fact I raised that saying that white people have a responsibility for fixing inequality as incredibly stupid in a post earlier. I have never said anything approaching either, so you have either confused me with someone else, or you are simply just using me as a foil to argue entirely against something else. Personally I don't care if you are white or not; yet another case of your arguing not the points raised, but an entirely different set. Am I white or not? I don't say, because it is entirely irrelevant to the argument at hand. By the way, you mispelt my name.
|
Anyone want to explain to me why I should not be ashamed of the Portland rioters? Protesting pipelines makes sense. You're preventing something. Are these people hoping to overturn the ruling? What is going on. It makes no sense.
|
On November 13 2016 00:01 Mohdoo wrote:
Anyone want to explain to me why I should not be ashamed of the Portland rioters? Protesting pipelines makes sense. You're preventing something. Are these people hoping to overturn the ruling? What is going on. It makes no sense.
why should you be ashamed of what some other idiots are doing when you've stated disapproval of them?
it's sufficient to say they're wrong.
If you're going to protest you should have some sort of goal or objective that could be given.
also, anyone rioting rather than protesting should be arrested.
not that I've actually looked at the portland case, I'm just going by the general way such things are and third-hand reports.
|
On November 13 2016 00:01 Mohdoo wrote:
Anyone want to explain to me why I should not be ashamed of the Portland rioters? Could you explain to me why you feel ashamed?
|
On November 12 2016 23:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's not an "ad Hominem" to point out that you are not replying to me, but are discussing something else entirely. As for "ad personam" I certainly hope so! Please try to read up on what words mean before applying them. Shame you aren't replying to me "ad personam" but instead are talking about a strawman. You are arguing that mass rascists incidents in USA are fine, because "poor white people" in USA feel they are living under contempt? I have never said poor white people are dominant. I have never said equality can be acheived by pinning down white people. In fact I raised that saying that white people have a responsibility for fixing inequality as incredibly stupid in a post earlier. I have never said anything approaching either, so you have either confused me with someone else, or you are simply just using me as a foil to argue entirely against something else. Personally I don't care if you are white or not; yet another case of your arguing not the points raised, but an entirely different set. Am I white or not? I don't say, because it is entriely irrelevant to the argument at hand. By the way, you mispelt my name.
- I never said racist incident are fine, I even used the term facism (do you think I'm for facism ?) to describe this evolution of politics ;
- there are no "mass racists incidents", unless you actually believe ten or so tweets in a country of 300 + million people is massive ;
- you wrote "They are certainly dominant over poorer minorities in their local area" and you wrote that the white poor are "powerful and numerous", which is quite a synonym for dominant in my mind.
I mean, come on... Make an effort and think.
|
On November 12 2016 23:26 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 23:16 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 23:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 22:52 TheDwf wrote:On November 12 2016 22:48 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On November 12 2016 22:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 12 2016 22:23 Sent. wrote:The way I see, we need to try and create a society that is fair to everyone. This is what SJWs want, its what everyone else on the left wants, and its probably (at a push) what the majority of people in the US want. MRAs also want a fair society but just like SJWs they have a very unique definition of fairness. I don't think it's useful to say that SJWs want to create a society that is fair to everyone (according to them) because everyone else thinks such society wouldn't be fair. From what i have read, the problem is not that people don't like white men. It's that there is a white man resentment at a society they used to have every single right upon and that is getting more diverse. And it's that resentment that got Trump elected. Hardly. Trump won more of every minority than Mittens.More blacks, more hispanics, more asians more other. Trumps biggest gains were amongst those who voted Obama in 08 & 12.Clinton lost in the rust belt.PA, MI, WI.For economic reasons solely. Please don't make this about race/gender/sexuality when it was clearly about poor economic conditions in the rust belt. If there was no racial factor involved, how do you explain this? 340 million people. I'm sure you've seen the video of the three African Americans beating up the old white guy because he voted Trump? I have and I'm not going to judge a whole race due to that. From what I understand the states I mentioned that flipped have a fairly low hispanic population. The problem with this NotAllX argument is that I never said that all X behave like this. You want to completely discard the racial factor, while focusing only on the class one. Things are not that easy. An election is certainly not single-factor. Why is the KKK openly rejoicing if it's only about the Rust Belt? Why are we already witnessing a rise in that kind of racist aggression, just like after the Brexit? Class played a role, the personality of the Democrat candidate played a role, race played a role, etc. It's very basic.The KKK is rejoicing because the candidate who wanted to increase islamic refugee intake by 600% lost.Does that mean everyone who disagreed with increasing the islamic intake by 600% is a KKK nazi? How many registered members does the KKK have now anyway a few thousand? Irrelevant organisation. BTW not all KKK are rejoicing right now.This KKK grand dragon supported Clinton. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L65RBwrtOeQ
Somehow I don't think the KKK are holding a "Donald Trump victory parade" in December in North Carolina purely because of not letting in 50,000 Syrian refugees to a population of over 300 million. Especially when their stated reason is "Trump's race united my people."
(this is the real KKK, by the way; the site announcing it held events in the past)
|
On November 13 2016 00:04 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 00:01 Mohdoo wrote:
Anyone want to explain to me why I should not be ashamed of the Portland rioters? Protesting pipelines makes sense. You're preventing something. Are these people hoping to overturn the ruling? What is going on. It makes no sense. why should you be ashamed of what some other idiots are doing when you've stated disapproval of them? it's sufficient to say they're wrong. If you're going to protest you should have some sort of goal or objective that could be given. also, anyone rioting rather than protesting should be arrested. not that I've actually looked at the portland case, I'm just going by the general way such things are and third-hand reports.
I identify with my community. I am ashamed because I tend to agree with the values of Portland.
On November 13 2016 00:18 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 00:01 Mohdoo wrote:
Anyone want to explain to me why I should not be ashamed of the Portland rioters? Could you explain to me why you feel ashamed?
They are causing damage in response to something they can not change. The damage is directed towards a community that overwhelmingly supports the same things they do. That's why we voted blue. They are causing a lot of damage and breeding a lot of anger. Nothing will change. This is purely a negative event.
|
On November 13 2016 00:19 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 23:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's not an "ad Hominem" to point out that you are not replying to me, but are discussing something else entirely. As for "ad personam" I certainly hope so! Please try to read up on what words mean before applying them. Shame you aren't replying to me "ad personam" but instead are talking about a strawman. You are arguing that mass rascists incidents in USA are fine, because "poor white people" in USA feel they are living under contempt? I have never said poor white people are dominant. I have never said equality can be acheived by pinning down white people. In fact I raised that saying that white people have a responsibility for fixing inequality as incredibly stupid in a post earlier. I have never said anything approaching either, so you have either confused me with someone else, or you are simply just using me as a foil to argue entirely against something else. Personally I don't care if you are white or not; yet another case of your arguing not the points raised, but an entirely different set. Am I white or not? I don't say, because it is entriely irrelevant to the argument at hand. By the way, you mispelt my name. - I never said racist incident are fine, I even used the term facism (do you think I'm for facism ?) to describe this evolution of politics ; - there are no "mass racists incidents", unless you actually believe ten or so tweets in a country of 300 + million people is massive ; - you wrote "They are certainly dominant over poorer minorities in their local area" and you wrote that the white poor are "powerful and numerous", which is quite a synonym for dominant in my mind. I mean, come on... Make an effort and think.
While they have vested interests, both the Southern Poverty Law Center and Council on Islamic-American relations are saying there actually is an uptick in these events, though they need time to be properly quantified.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/11/12/post-election-spate-hate-crimes-worse-than-post-911-experts-say/93681294/
Don't confuse discrediting of a few claims with nothing occurring at all.
|
On November 13 2016 00:19 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 23:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It's not an "ad Hominem" to point out that you are not replying to me, but are discussing something else entirely. As for "ad personam" I certainly hope so! Please try to read up on what words mean before applying them. Shame you aren't replying to me "ad personam" but instead are talking about a strawman. You are arguing that mass rascists incidents in USA are fine, because "poor white people" in USA feel they are living under contempt? I have never said poor white people are dominant. I have never said equality can be acheived by pinning down white people. In fact I raised that saying that white people have a responsibility for fixing inequality as incredibly stupid in a post earlier. I have never said anything approaching either, so you have either confused me with someone else, or you are simply just using me as a foil to argue entirely against something else. Personally I don't care if you are white or not; yet another case of your arguing not the points raised, but an entirely different set. Am I white or not? I don't say, because it is entriely irrelevant to the argument at hand. By the way, you mispelt my name. - I never said racist incident are fine, I even used the term facism (do you think I'm for facism ?) to describe this evolution of politics ; - there are no "mass racists incidents", unless you actually believe ten or so tweets in a country of 300 + million people is massive ; - you wrote "They are certainly dominant over poorer minorities in their local area" and you wrote that the white poor are "powerful and numerous", which is quite a synonym for dominant in my mind. I mean, come on... Make an effort and think.
It helps to use the full quote:On November 12 2016 23:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote: That doesn't make any sense. In any form. Resentment of the more powerful and numerous against the poorer minority? OK. Sure. Somehow I highly doubt these incidents would occur in areas where these white Americans were in the minority.
I never said that they were the dominant group in the first place. That was you. A group can be more numerous and powerful over another group without being the dominant group. It's not a particularily hard concept especially in a localised sense.
Anyhow, as you have selectively quoted to change the meaning of said quote, I see that my suspicions that you have no intention of arguing with me, but prefer to instead argue something else instead are correct. Please use someone else to argue whatever agenda you have instead. Good bye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
