|
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. |
United States44402 Posts
On August 30 2017 05:31 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:29 KwarK wrote:
Danglars is the racism equivalent of an anti-vaxxer. That's a cute way to call someone an idiot. .. at least that's the first thing that sprung to my mind.
He literally doesn't believe in any of the most basic facts needed to have a meaningful opinion on the subject but insists upon repeating irrelevant statements he read on the internet as if they refute arguments he completely fails to understand.
|
On August 30 2017 05:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 30 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 05:23 Nevuk wrote:
Trump was definitely a racist in the 80s what with the whole being sued for purposely keeping black people from being tenants.
His presidential campaign was literally launched by a speech where he called mexican immigrants rapists. And, of course, birtherism. Central Park Five? There's literally not a single reason besides racism to believe they're still guilty. Didn't he hold a press conference about them? Or a couple? Even after they were proven to be innocent?
He took out a full page newspaper ad
|
On August 30 2017 05:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:31 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:29 KwarK wrote:
Danglars is the racism equivalent of an anti-vaxxer. That's a cute way to call someone an idiot. .. at least that's the first thing that sprung to my mind. He literally doesn't believe in any of the most basic facts needed to have a meaningful opinion on the subject but insists upon repeating irrelevant statements he read on the internet as if they refute arguments he completely fails to understand.
The fact people still take him seriously I find completely mind blowing to be 100% honest.
|
On August 30 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:00 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:52 Logo wrote:On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember. The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash. More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power. So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing? Incompetence instead of competence in destruction. And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here. I'm hardly joking, it's a pejorative and understood as one, but by definition it really had joined fascist for actual meaning. You know good and well there's like a dozen reasons people have brought up for Trump and racism that amounts to a lot more than he's a white male. You can dismiss it as circumstantial or not substantial enough, but it's silly to pretend that people don't have cause to see him that way. Presenting the election as a choice with an "incompetent and racist version of the same thing" is inviting scorn. It's a politically partisan attack and should be seen and treated as such. Your mythical "hmm let's go down the bullet points from immigration policy to Arpaio and reach a conclusion" isn't at issue. That is because you shit on people who voted for Clinton. You demand your views be respected at all costs, but then refuse to extend the same to others. Everything revolves around your feelings and that you feel respected and comfortable at the expense of everyone involved.
Show me. You exaggerate like mad, but show me "you shit on people who voted for Clinton" and this bs about not extending the same to others.
|
On August 30 2017 05:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:31 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:29 KwarK wrote:
Danglars is the racism equivalent of an anti-vaxxer. That's a cute way to call someone an idiot. .. at least that's the first thing that sprung to my mind. He literally doesn't believe in any of the most basic facts needed to have a meaningful opinion on the subject but insists upon repeating irrelevant statements he read on the internet as if they refute arguments he completely fails to understand.
I wasn't disagreeing or something.
|
On August 30 2017 05:09 KwarK wrote:
I think Danglars genuinely believes that we think Trump is a racist because he's a white man and to us all white men are racists.
I tire of the bullshit framed questions. You can ask me why I voted the way I did, but voting for the racist or Hillary ... it's like we're at the children's debate club.
|
United States44402 Posts
On August 30 2017 05:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:09 KwarK wrote:
I think Danglars genuinely believes that we think Trump is a racist because he's a white man and to us all white men are racists. I tire of the bullshit framed questions. You can ask me why I voted the way I did, but voting for the racist or Hillary ... it's like we're at the children's debate club.
On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:
And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here.
|
On August 30 2017 05:32 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:28 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 30 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 05:23 Nevuk wrote:
Trump was definitely a racist in the 80s what with the whole being sued for purposely keeping black people from being tenants.
His presidential campaign was literally launched by a speech where he called mexican immigrants rapists. And, of course, birtherism. Central Park Five? There's literally not a single reason besides racism to believe they're still guilty. Didn't he hold a press conference about them? Or a couple? Even after they were proven to be innocent? He said on CNN in 2016 "They admitted they were guilty" like that means anything after DNA cleared them. Also tweets, because of course there are tweets!
Because confessions are so reliable. Police has never forced a defendant to confess to a crime they did commit. There is so much evidence of Trump’s racial bias that I lose track of all of it.
|
On August 30 2017 05:10 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:09 KwarK wrote:
I think Danglars genuinely believes that we think Trump is a racist because he's a white man and to us all white men are racists. Nah, the occasional racist joke makes the racist. Btw, i don't think Danglars believes that, i actually think he knows full well that Trump is a racist because of other reasons. Funny thing, never watched it because i have trouble understanding what he's saying. Kevin Hart, and Ben Clover are the most watched black comedians for me.
On August 30 2017 05:10 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:19 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:15 Plansix wrote:
I’ve known way to may racists who use racist jokes as the test to find out if they are in favorable company. Never cracked a joke about stereotypes? Or disabled people? edit: or gender? I think, and don't get this wrong, that people like you are as big a part of the problem as racism itself. You're not helping by screamishly pointing at anyone who's cracking a race/nationality joke. It is racism either way...Just because jokes can often be taken in good light doesn't make it less racist. Both joke teller and audience can make a joke more or less a racist act. Jokes are about expectations, you subvert an exception or you play into it, either way you're doing it at the expense of that thing. Meaning a joke can be funny multiple ways, an absurd or a straight take on it. So a joke based on race depending on the joke teller and audience, it can be racist and shit or just that mild racism we all kinda are fine with depending on the people because it's understood it's in poor taste/is bad
Funny enough, does it make it better m4ini if you're a racist for your jokes, and Trump's a racist for (likely) participation in his father's real estate controversies and Arpaio?
|
United States44402 Posts
Again, Danglars, in your opinion was the American population ever racist? If so, when was racism fixed?
|
On August 30 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 05:00 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:52 Logo wrote:On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash. More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power. So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing? Incompetence instead of competence in destruction. And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here. I'm hardly joking, it's a pejorative and understood as one, but by definition it really had joined fascist for actual meaning. You know good and well there's like a dozen reasons people have brought up for Trump and racism that amounts to a lot more than he's a white male. You can dismiss it as circumstantial or not substantial enough, but it's silly to pretend that people don't have cause to see him that way. Presenting the election as a choice with an "incompetent and racist version of the same thing" is inviting scorn. It's a politically partisan attack and should be seen and treated as such. Your mythical "hmm let's go down the bullet points from immigration policy to Arpaio and reach a conclusion" isn't at issue. That is because you shit on people who voted for Clinton. You demand your views be respected at all costs, but then refuse to extend the same to others. Everything revolves around your feelings and that you feel respected and comfortable at the expense of everyone involved. Show me. You exaggerate like mad, but show me "you shit on people who voted for Clinton" and this bs about not extending the same to others.
Nah, I’m all set. I won’t play into your victimhood any more. As I said before, you are more interested in proving the other side is terrible than having a discussion. You fail to provide other posters with the respect you constantly demand.
|
Danglars, do you condem the fact that >1/5th of the eligible black population in Kentucky can't vote?
Do you think that Trump is racist? Do you think there's institutionalized racism in this country?
Let's stop pussyfooting around.
|
On August 30 2017 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:09 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 04:22 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:51 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash. More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power. So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing? Incompetence instead of competence in destruction. And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here. I'm hardly joking, it's a pejorative and understood as one, but by definition it really had joined fascist for actual meaning. “definition it really had joined fascist” Can you rephrase that please? I’m have a hard time parsing what you are trying to say. Fascist showed up in Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language. He said it now existed as simply "something not desirable." When you posit the racist choice for president, or really which racist you wanted for president, I say the word similarly exists as something like "a person I disagree with personally or politically." I’ve said this before: but I am convinced a man could burn a cross on Obama’s lawn and you would still question if that man was racist. Your refusal to engage with the word makes further discussion of this topic pointless. Then stop these political gotcha questions like you voted for Hillary or that racist. I've heard enough of your style binaries, like there's what you believe about immigration policy, and then there's the racist policy. Ironic because it was directly addressed by the article that I linked. If you could please answer me this. At what point does a voter become responsible for the racist policies enacted by the politician he voted for?
What was the field? Are the racist policies Gorsameth not liking the policies (this forum all day long on immigration policies. Wall = Racism), is he locking the blacks up? If I refused to vote Hillary, was that a vote for Trump and thus for racism?
|
On August 30 2017 05:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:10 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:09 KwarK wrote:
I think Danglars genuinely believes that we think Trump is a racist because he's a white man and to us all white men are racists. Nah, the occasional racist joke makes the racist. Btw, i don't think Danglars believes that, i actually think he knows full well that Trump is a racist because of other reasons. I still like the Chapell show. Funny thing, never watched it because i have trouble understanding what he's saying. Kevin Hart, and Ben Clover are the most watched black comedians for me. Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:10 semantics wrote:On August 30 2017 04:19 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 04:15 Plansix wrote:
I’ve known way to may racists who use racist jokes as the test to find out if they are in favorable company. Never cracked a joke about stereotypes? Or disabled people? edit: or gender? I think, and don't get this wrong, that people like you are as big a part of the problem as racism itself. You're not helping by screamishly pointing at anyone who's cracking a race/nationality joke. It is racism either way...Just because jokes can often be taken in good light doesn't make it less racist. Both joke teller and audience can make a joke more or less a racist act. Jokes are about expectations, you subvert an exception or you play into it, either way you're doing it at the expense of that thing. Meaning a joke can be funny multiple ways, an absurd or a straight take on it. So a joke based on race depending on the joke teller and audience, it can be racist and shit or just that mild racism we all kinda are fine with depending on the people because it's understood it's in poor taste/is bad Funny enough, does it make it better m4ini if you're a racist for your jokes, and Trump's a racist for (likely) participation in his father's real estate controversies and Arpaio?
I think there's a difference between making a funny about american stereotypes etc and pardoning someone who tortured and "hunted" down blacks and latinos.
What kind of retarded question is that?
|
On August 30 2017 05:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 04:58 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 04:56 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 04:51 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:
I find broad similarities between you and actual haters based on skin color. And we're straight back to "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism". And any criticism of liberal elites is folly. I call them like I see them, and your argument is basically the same fringe with the political epithets and sacred cows reversed. Again, when people say you're being racist, they're not doing it as an insult. They're doing it because you're being racist. You can keep telling yourself that it's not connected to anything you're doing but that won't make it true. It's not an insult. It's a description. If you don't want the description then stop doing the thing. I feel like we're living in the equivalent of a bizarro world where a bunch of actual literal rapists who actually rape people are insisting that rapist is a rude insult and that they won't engage in any kind of debate until the other side agrees to stop calling them rapists. And then they go out and vote to legalize marital rape or some shit but insist they only did it to get back at the people who keep saying they're fine with rape. Look, we don't need your fourth time saying half the country is racist, there's no problem calling half the country racist, and the solution is for racist people to stop being racist. I wrote my response that there's a great need to bring people that think like you do back to sanity from lunacy. I laid it out, and you backpedaled like calling tons of people racists makes everything better. It doesn't. You're equivalent in character to some of the worst Trump MAGA characters I know and I have the devil of the time persuading people that your opinion of half the country is a minority in the Democratic party ... aka not everybody sees themselves as the white knights against a racist country sent by some colonial power to save the indigenous racists. In your opinion was the American population ever racist? If so, when was racism fixed?
Does your wife, neighbors, friends know you think they're racist or do you have an insular friend circle? What do they think about it? I mean, do they outright admit it and say they're recovering, or maybe get angry? Does it ever trouble you to insult half the country and then ask them to vote like you do?
|
How is that answer even connected to what you were quoting?
|
On August 30 2017 05:29 KwarK wrote:
Danglars is the racism equivalent of an anti-vaxxer.
You should really stick to this level of intelligence, it suits you.
|
On August 30 2017 05:45 m4ini wrote:
How is that answer even connected to what you were quoting?
He's been doing a lot of the questioning for the moment, and I wanted to get back to the implications of his first mega-post.
|
On August 30 2017 05:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:45 m4ini wrote:
How is that answer even connected to what you were quoting? He's been doing a lot of the questioning for the moment, and I wanted to get back to the implications of his first mega-post.
And you wonder why people accuse you of deflecting from the issue? It's a very simple question, that could've been answered just by a single sentence. If you quote one thing and answer another of five pages back because it's more convenient, yeah that's on you.
|
On August 30 2017 05:21 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 30 2017 05:17 zlefin wrote:On August 30 2017 05:14 LegalLord wrote:On August 30 2017 05:09 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Christ... She's going to run again...
Are democrats that dumb? I doubt it. They very well might be. They managed to get Trump elected, after all. that would be the republicans who got him elected; not the democrats. You're both right. Democrats failed to field a candidate that would win. Republicans were probably just as surprised by this win. Hillary could've won though, that's the point. The way they handled the entire campaign is what lost them. Keep in mind, the majority voted for HRC. It's not just the eMails, it's how they "handled" Sanders, how people had to resign because of fuckery, etc and so on. How often are you gonna quote and answer the same post? Let me ask you this, lets see if you get a clear answer out: what conclusion would you come to now?
At the risk of responding twice (and this thread moves quick, sorry), I'd say the situation with Arpaio starts to change things. Most of the accusations of racism in the campaign were intellectually bankrupt and obviously politically motivated. You seem to have an honesty streak, so I wondered what about his campaign struck you that way. I mean this as more than Trump sticking his foot in his mouth and being an incompetent communicator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
272
EPT
