|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 01 2019 07:28 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 06:55 iamthedave wrote:On March 01 2019 05:03 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2019 04:19 iamthedave wrote:On March 01 2019 04:10 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2019 02:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 01 2019 01:47 IgnE wrote:
why would you hide the rules from people who want to know what they are? seems cruel Under the same rationale that (game company of your choice) doesn't divulge criteria or methods for detecting botting or cheating tools, I'd imagine. It's certainly cruel, but primarily to botters and cheaters (and to the false positives, but that's what appeals and reasoning are for). you know, I think a lot of sociopaths have a pretty good understanding of the rules. that’s what allows them to circumvent them. most people explicitly asking about the rules want, i think, two things: to understand the rules, and to understand their justification. I don't think point two is accurate actually. Most people just want to know what rules they have to follow and then go on with their day/life. It's a minority who want to know - or even particularly care - about the justification unless the rule is annoying or inconvenient in some fashion. Like 'do not walk on the grass'. I doubt many people actually care about the reason behind it. perhaps, but then most people dont ask what the rules are, they operate in one way until they are told to act differently. it seems to me that most people who respond to being told to act differently by asking the question are after something kore Maybe it's just me and mine, but I always ask if I'm in an unfamiliar situation where I don't know the rules. I once asked about the proper way to do things in a fancy-ish restaurant because I'd never been in one before. Could be an English thing, but almost everyone I know is the same. We get into an unfamiliar position and we're all about asking to find out the state of play. Nobody asks 'why' though. It's all 'what are we meant to do? That? Okay, we'll all do that. Whew. Order is restored'. This is a rabbit hole you don't want to go down. From my limited and indirect experience with individuals from the incel community, I assume, that they don't want to know the rules so they can play by them. They want to know the rules so they can plan a straight path that leads them to victory, i.e., sex. It's not about understanding human interaction and realising that every woman /potential partner can be different and functions by a different ruleset, so to speak, but about gaming the system, cracking the code, making it impossible for the "female" to resist giving sex. I'll quote a famous pirate here: "the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules" There are no god damn set in stone rules that will, inevitably, lead you to your goal of doing the thing. It's so incredibly aggravating that people think that the code is a thing. Or even defend others "simply asking for the rules". Mind-boggling.
Wait what incels?
Did I miss a step or two in the discussion? I thought we got here by murmuring over racism?
|
I think my post on the last page might make that post more clear. Apparently a bunch of people (including me) had the same mental association with another discussion about clarifying the rules that happened a year or two ago in this thread (and probably at a lot of other places on the internet)
Namely, the discussions about sex and consent.
|
On March 01 2019 07:28 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 06:55 iamthedave wrote:On March 01 2019 05:03 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2019 04:19 iamthedave wrote:On March 01 2019 04:10 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2019 02:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 01 2019 01:47 IgnE wrote:
why would you hide the rules from people who want to know what they are? seems cruel Under the same rationale that (game company of your choice) doesn't divulge criteria or methods for detecting botting or cheating tools, I'd imagine. It's certainly cruel, but primarily to botters and cheaters (and to the false positives, but that's what appeals and reasoning are for). you know, I think a lot of sociopaths have a pretty good understanding of the rules. that’s what allows them to circumvent them. most people explicitly asking about the rules want, i think, two things: to understand the rules, and to understand their justification. I don't think point two is accurate actually. Most people just want to know what rules they have to follow and then go on with their day/life. It's a minority who want to know - or even particularly care - about the justification unless the rule is annoying or inconvenient in some fashion. Like 'do not walk on the grass'. I doubt many people actually care about the reason behind it. perhaps, but then most people dont ask what the rules are, they operate in one way until they are told to act differently. it seems to me that most people who respond to being told to act differently by asking the question are after something kore Maybe it's just me and mine, but I always ask if I'm in an unfamiliar situation where I don't know the rules. I once asked about the proper way to do things in a fancy-ish restaurant because I'd never been in one before. Could be an English thing, but almost everyone I know is the same. We get into an unfamiliar position and we're all about asking to find out the state of play. Nobody asks 'why' though. It's all 'what are we meant to do? That? Okay, we'll all do that. Whew. Order is restored'. This is a rabbit hole you don't want to go down. From my limited and indirect experience with individuals from the incel community, I assume, that they don't want to know the rules so they can play by them. They want to know the rules so they can plan a straight path that leads them to victory, i.e., sex. It's not about understanding human interaction and realising that every woman /potential partner can be different and functions by a different ruleset, so to speak, but about gaming the system, cracking the code, making it impossible for the "female" to resist giving sex. I'll quote a famous pirate here: "the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules" There are no god damn set in stone rules that will, inevitably, lead you to your goal of doing the thing. It's so incredibly aggravating that people think that the code is a thing. Or even defend others "simply asking for the rules". Mind-boggling.
when i refer to rules i am not referring to an algorithm. its fairly easy i think to convince someone that other humans are not simply algorithmic. so by “rules” i do not mean something directed; they are not governed by a narrow telos like “getting laid”
but as to everyone automatically assuming that anyone who interrogates the idea of consent is only after unsanctionable (because within “the rules”) non-consensual sex: its all very provincial of you. the subsumption of all questions under only one possible motivation seems to belie the very instability in “consent” that is being questioned. the jusification must lie elsewhere
|
Sorry igne, but are you actually asking what are socially acceptable ways to court a woman as a male, ( I am presuming in USA on account of you being from USA and this being the US pol thread) or are you railing against the fact that you don't know them, or that these unspoken cultural rules exist, because you appear to be being deliberately obtuse here.
|
On March 01 2019 08:24 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 07:28 Artisreal wrote:On March 01 2019 06:55 iamthedave wrote:On March 01 2019 05:03 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2019 04:19 iamthedave wrote:On March 01 2019 04:10 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2019 02:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 01 2019 01:47 IgnE wrote:
why would you hide the rules from people who want to know what they are? seems cruel Under the same rationale that (game company of your choice) doesn't divulge criteria or methods for detecting botting or cheating tools, I'd imagine. It's certainly cruel, but primarily to botters and cheaters (and to the false positives, but that's what appeals and reasoning are for). you know, I think a lot of sociopaths have a pretty good understanding of the rules. that’s what allows them to circumvent them. most people explicitly asking about the rules want, i think, two things: to understand the rules, and to understand their justification. I don't think point two is accurate actually. Most people just want to know what rules they have to follow and then go on with their day/life. It's a minority who want to know - or even particularly care - about the justification unless the rule is annoying or inconvenient in some fashion. Like 'do not walk on the grass'. I doubt many people actually care about the reason behind it. perhaps, but then most people dont ask what the rules are, they operate in one way until they are told to act differently. it seems to me that most people who respond to being told to act differently by asking the question are after something kore Maybe it's just me and mine, but I always ask if I'm in an unfamiliar situation where I don't know the rules. I once asked about the proper way to do things in a fancy-ish restaurant because I'd never been in one before. Could be an English thing, but almost everyone I know is the same. We get into an unfamiliar position and we're all about asking to find out the state of play. Nobody asks 'why' though. It's all 'what are we meant to do? That? Okay, we'll all do that. Whew. Order is restored'. This is a rabbit hole you don't want to go down. From my limited and indirect experience with individuals from the incel community, I assume, that they don't want to know the rules so they can play by them. They want to know the rules so they can plan a straight path that leads them to victory, i.e., sex. It's not about understanding human interaction and realising that every woman /potential partner can be different and functions by a different ruleset, so to speak, but about gaming the system, cracking the code, making it impossible for the "female" to resist giving sex. I'll quote a famous pirate here: "the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules" There are no god damn set in stone rules that will, inevitably, lead you to your goal of doing the thing. It's so incredibly aggravating that people think that the code is a thing. Or even defend others "simply asking for the rules". Mind-boggling. Wait what incels? Did I miss a step or two in the discussion? I thought we got here by murmuring over racism?
Or it was I who misread inge's post. But the sistematic approach is nonetheless rather identical. Demanding the exact rules so you can circumvent judgement by finding a golden path (loophole) through the rules that are very well defined. Adhering to the law while defying the underlying thought of the law, the reason for its existence. Sometimes these things have to be vague to stop such abuse, as you'd need common sense to interpret the law and have it applied to more than a predetermined set of circumstances.
Because if you find that one situation, that isn't covered, it's the loophole that let's you abuse the law /rule /human decency as much as you want, because, as we can clearly see, you play by the rules.
|
Sigh. Another bold faced lie for Republicans in Congress to ignore. And this one is having real world, dangerous consequences (see the recent attempt to sneak nuclear reactors to Saudi).
Apparently both Kelly and McGahn wrote internal memos at the time saying Trump ordered them to give Kushner TS clearance despite security experts, including the CIA, saying not to. Trump, ofc, on the record said he had no role in Kushner receiving his clearance.
Sad how far the party of security and rule of law has fallen. Someone as compromised, not to mention unqualified, as Kushner leading foreign policy discussions should scare everyone.
|
Well to go back to the original post that prompted my entrance into the discussion:
On March 01 2019 00:57 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2019 23:38 Plansix wrote:
Words mean different things. There is no single color red. Especially if one is color blind. The more I've been exposed to the tactics of the "I'm totally not-racist" crowd, the more I enjoy the double entendre in "color blind". Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 00:54 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2019 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 01 2019 00:41 Plansix wrote:
I think it is pretty clear that xM(Z’s goal in defining racism in this narrow method is to prohibit anyone from using the word “racism” to describe the intent of another person. Ever. It is to narrowly define the word to such an extent that any person can argue easily their actions or views do not fit that narrow definition. I would always argue in favour of using specific terms for types of racism instead of the blanket term 'racism'. For me, this is just better communication and more conducive to mutual understanding. Some things, though, are just racist. The problem is that even staying there are different types of racism is quickly undercut by people who argue that “the rules are being changed.” People are uncomfortable with the concept of racism and that they might have contributed to it in the past, so they want it strictly defined as something they can easily avoid. People want rules. Similarly, incels and other sexual harassers always want to know what the "rules" are for what constitutes sexual harassment. Or the "rules" for accessing a woman's pants. Or like how people who frequently get banned from forums always want to know what the exact rules are to not being banned. There seems to be a pattern.
And to put it bluntly: the rules have changed. Why pretend that people complaining that “the rules have changed” are delusional? There are rules, and they have changed.
I think it is important to have a convincing explanation of how they have changed and why they had to change. For, you know, social cohesion and harmony.
|
On March 01 2019 08:28 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 07:28 Artisreal wrote:On March 01 2019 06:55 iamthedave wrote:On March 01 2019 05:03 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2019 04:19 iamthedave wrote:On March 01 2019 04:10 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2019 02:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 01 2019 01:47 IgnE wrote:
why would you hide the rules from people who want to know what they are? seems cruel Under the same rationale that (game company of your choice) doesn't divulge criteria or methods for detecting botting or cheating tools, I'd imagine. It's certainly cruel, but primarily to botters and cheaters (and to the false positives, but that's what appeals and reasoning are for). you know, I think a lot of sociopaths have a pretty good understanding of the rules. that’s what allows them to circumvent them. most people explicitly asking about the rules want, i think, two things: to understand the rules, and to understand their justification. I don't think point two is accurate actually. Most people just want to know what rules they have to follow and then go on with their day/life. It's a minority who want to know - or even particularly care - about the justification unless the rule is annoying or inconvenient in some fashion. Like 'do not walk on the grass'. I doubt many people actually care about the reason behind it. perhaps, but then most people dont ask what the rules are, they operate in one way until they are told to act differently. it seems to me that most people who respond to being told to act differently by asking the question are after something kore Maybe it's just me and mine, but I always ask if I'm in an unfamiliar situation where I don't know the rules. I once asked about the proper way to do things in a fancy-ish restaurant because I'd never been in one before. Could be an English thing, but almost everyone I know is the same. We get into an unfamiliar position and we're all about asking to find out the state of play. Nobody asks 'why' though. It's all 'what are we meant to do? That? Okay, we'll all do that. Whew. Order is restored'. This is a rabbit hole you don't want to go down. From my limited and indirect experience with individuals from the incel community, I assume, that they don't want to know the rules so they can play by them. They want to know the rules so they can plan a straight path that leads them to victory, i.e., sex. It's not about understanding human interaction and realising that every woman /potential partner can be different and functions by a different ruleset, so to speak, but about gaming the system, cracking the code, making it impossible for the "female" to resist giving sex. I'll quote a famous pirate here: "the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules" There are no god damn set in stone rules that will, inevitably, lead you to your goal of doing the thing. It's so incredibly aggravating that people think that the code is a thing. Or even defend others "simply asking for the rules". Mind-boggling. when i refer to rules i am not referring to an algorithm. its fairly easy i think to convince someone that other humans are not simply algorithmic. so by “rules” i do not mean something directed; they are not governed by a narrow telos like “getting laid” but as to everyone automatically assuming that anyone who interrogates the idea of consent is only after unsanctionable (because within “the rules”) non-consensual sex: its all very provincial of you. the subsumption of all questions under only one possible motivation seems to belie the very instability in “consent” that is being questioned. the jusification must lie elsewhere
People assume that folks questioning consent are after non consensual sex because it has been a common discussion on this website and other places. If that was not the course of your interrogation, perhaps you should put more effort into make that fact clear from the onset.
On March 01 2019 08:44 IgnE wrote:Well to go back to the original post that prompted my entrance into the discussion: Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 00:57 NewSunshine wrote:On February 28 2019 23:38 Plansix wrote:
Words mean different things. There is no single color red. Especially if one is color blind. u The more I've been exposed to the tactics of the "I'm totally not-racist" crowd, the more I enjoy the double entendre in "color blind". On March 01 2019 00:54 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2019 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 01 2019 00:41 Plansix wrote:
I think it is pretty clear that xM(Z’s goal in defining racism in this narrow method is to prohibit anyone from using the word “racism” to describe the intent of another person. Ever. It is to narrowly define the word to such an extent that any person can argue easily their actions or views do not fit that narrow definition. I would always argue in favour of using specific terms for types of racism instead of the blanket term 'racism'. For me, this is just better communication and more conducive to mutual understanding. Some things, though, are just racist. The problem is that even staying there are different types of racism is quickly undercut by people who argue that “the rules are being changed.” People are uncomfortable with the concept of racism and that they might have contributed to it in the past, so they want it strictly defined as something they can easily avoid. People want rules. Similarly, incels and other sexual harassers always want to know what the "rules" are for what constitutes sexual harassment. Or the "rules" for accessing a woman's pants. Or like how people who frequently get banned from forums always want to know what the exact rules are to not being banned. There seems to be a pattern. And to put it bluntly: the rules have changed. Why pretend that people complaining that “the rules have changed” are delusional? There are rules, and they have changed. I think it is important to have a convincing explanation of how they have changed and why they had to change. For, you know, social cohesion and harmony.
It isn’t that the rules changed, as much as people were uninterested in learning them. And now they are complaining because they have to follow them.
|
that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say
|
On March 01 2019 04:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 00:29 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2019 23:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 28 2019 23:29 xM(Z wrote:
the "heterogeneity and homogeneity -> Variance" is your(in layman's terms) "ethno-nationalism" lol!". No. "ethno-nationalism" is not the same as heterogeneity and homogeneity or variance. That doesn't even make sense. They don't even interact. One is used in science, the other is politics, with totally different meanings. It's like saying heterogeneity and homogeneity is your(in layman's terms) "democracy". lol!" On February 28 2019 23:29 xM(Z wrote:
also, who said "that racism describes physiological differences between races"?; need source/quotes. On February 28 2019 22:25 xM(Z wrote:or, because the word racism was equated with discrimination and prejudice so there's no word left to describe differences. that was on the lines of: An entry in the Oxford English Dictionary (2008) simply defines racialism as "[a]n earlier term than racism, but now largely superseded by it", and cites it in a 1902 quote.[12] The revised Oxford English Dictionary cites the shortened term "racism" in a quote from the following year, 1903.[13][14] It was first defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989) as "[t]he theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race"; the same dictionary termed racism a synonym of racialism: "belief in the superiority of a particular race". racialism, (what people used early on/since the beginnings of time/fuck know since when((assumed for the sake of argument/as placeholder, the origin and initial form is not known)), to differentiate between different groups of people; you morphed it into racism, gave it intent and heading(superiority, etc) and left the layman without the original meaning and the original word. (mainly, you replaced an/the ancestral word and its meaning) basically, people run to concepts that exemplify differences but reject the guilt. so, ethno-nationalism. now, before going <epithets>, realize that for some/many people, difference is good, is positive. maybe i should've wrote "there's no loaded word left to describe differences", but come on ... Edit: and those terms are similar in this context; they pertain to ethnicity(in research you use ethnicity when trying to not offend people by using the word race), ethnic variance. "The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race" has very little to do with Urinary bladder cancer or histology, unless you are seriously trying to tell me that ethno-nationalism is based upon incidence of Urinary bladder cancer and microvascular vasodilatory function. They are also neither distinctive nor are abilities for that matter, so you fail even by your own defintions; what you wrote is garbage anyways. Also, why the hell are you posting like fluidrone? It makes your posts almost impossible to understand, which is why people are talking around you about seperate political matters, rather than the total garbage you are writing. i don't care about your opinions of race; what it constitutes, what it embodies, what it portraits, what it expresses, what/if any value it has, etcetcetc. that article in Nature used the word race; go ask them what they fucking meant with it.
i couldn't care less if you separate people based on ear shape, body hair or their ability to crack their knuckles then call them races and no one should care, but what they should care about is: once(if) you have them, what do you do with them?.
there are no words/terms left to use in discussions with the lefties, words that can be agreed upon at the start of an argument so trying to skew loaded meanings by ways of synonyms, i figured, might work. well that's a big fat no, because even when one manages to make an argument (barely)tangentially related(which is an heroic feat btw), in this case to race, lefties would just move the goal post then act as if it justifies everything.
Ex: someone mentioned race realism as if it has a more precise meaning or something but looking even at superficial definitions, some see it as literally racism while others as something opposed to race denialism, which is obviously one and the same thing to you ... ?.
anyway, after you figure out what the rules are then maybe you'll be presented with arguments that are understandable.
|
On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote:
that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say
When it comes to racism and consent, the historical reality is that no one wants to hear it. The debate about what they mean is born out of historical oppression of women and minorities. The resistance of men and dominate white culture(in the US) to accept these concepts and ton navigate their complexities. You are correct that the rulers have changed. But they have always been changing. The resistance to learning these rules is born out of a desire to not wanting to follow them at all. It is far easier to not worry if they are racist and not give a shit if a woman wanted to fuck them or not.
|
On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote:
that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say
I think it's going to be difficult to answer you without knowing what rules you thought there were, and when you think they changed.
On March 01 2019 09:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote:
that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say When it comes to racism and consent, the historical reality is that no one wants to hear it. The debate about what they mean is born out of historical oppression of women and minorities. The resistance of men and dominate white culture(in the US) to accept these concepts and ton navigate their complexities. You are correct that the rulers have changed. But they have always been changing. The resistance to learning these rules is born out of a desire to not wanting to follow them at all. It is far easier to not worry if they are racist and not give a shit if a woman wanted to fuck them or not.
It basically comes down to this. All my life I've been hearing/reading/seeing dudes talk about these amorphous "rules of dating", which never made any sort of sense to me, and ultimate amounted to little more than wanting to find any way to "crack the code" of just being a decent person and finding someone you like. It's one of the more harmless examples. If this is something that has been "changing", it's because it never had a real form to begin with.
|
On March 01 2019 08:57 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 04:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 01 2019 00:29 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2019 23:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 28 2019 23:29 xM(Z wrote:
the "heterogeneity and homogeneity -> Variance" is your(in layman's terms) "ethno-nationalism" lol!". No. "ethno-nationalism" is not the same as heterogeneity and homogeneity or variance. That doesn't even make sense. They don't even interact. One is used in science, the other is politics, with totally different meanings. It's like saying heterogeneity and homogeneity is your(in layman's terms) "democracy". lol!" On February 28 2019 23:29 xM(Z wrote:
also, who said "that racism describes physiological differences between races"?; need source/quotes. On February 28 2019 22:25 xM(Z wrote:or, because the word racism was equated with discrimination and prejudice so there's no word left to describe differences. that was on the lines of: An entry in the Oxford English Dictionary (2008) simply defines racialism as "[a]n earlier term than racism, but now largely superseded by it", and cites it in a 1902 quote.[12] The revised Oxford English Dictionary cites the shortened term "racism" in a quote from the following year, 1903.[13][14] It was first defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989) as "[t]he theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race"; the same dictionary termed racism a synonym of racialism: "belief in the superiority of a particular race". racialism, (what people used early on/since the beginnings of time/fuck know since when((assumed for the sake of argument/as placeholder, the origin and initial form is not known)), to differentiate between different groups of people; you morphed it into racism, gave it intent and heading(superiority, etc) and left the layman without the original meaning and the original word. (mainly, you replaced an/the ancestral word and its meaning) basically, people run to concepts that exemplify differences but reject the guilt. so, ethno-nationalism. now, before going <epithets>, realize that for some/many people, difference is good, is positive. maybe i should've wrote "there's no loaded word left to describe differences", but come on ... Edit: and those terms are similar in this context; they pertain to ethnicity(in research you use ethnicity when trying to not offend people by using the word race), ethnic variance. "The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race" has very little to do with Urinary bladder cancer or histology, unless you are seriously trying to tell me that ethno-nationalism is based upon incidence of Urinary bladder cancer and microvascular vasodilatory function. They are also neither distinctive nor are abilities for that matter, so you fail even by your own defintions; what you wrote is garbage anyways. Also, why the hell are you posting like fluidrone? It makes your posts almost impossible to understand, which is why people are talking around you about seperate political matters, rather than the total garbage you are writing. there are no words/terms left to use in discussions with the lefties
This discussion that you're trying to have. What is it?
|
On March 01 2019 08:57 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 04:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 01 2019 00:29 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2019 23:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On February 28 2019 23:29 xM(Z wrote:
the "heterogeneity and homogeneity -> Variance" is your(in layman's terms) "ethno-nationalism" lol!". No. "ethno-nationalism" is not the same as heterogeneity and homogeneity or variance. That doesn't even make sense. They don't even interact. One is used in science, the other is politics, with totally different meanings. It's like saying heterogeneity and homogeneity is your(in layman's terms) "democracy". lol!" On February 28 2019 23:29 xM(Z wrote:
also, who said "that racism describes physiological differences between races"?; need source/quotes. On February 28 2019 22:25 xM(Z wrote:or, because the word racism was equated with discrimination and prejudice so there's no word left to describe differences. that was on the lines of: An entry in the Oxford English Dictionary (2008) simply defines racialism as "[a]n earlier term than racism, but now largely superseded by it", and cites it in a 1902 quote.[12] The revised Oxford English Dictionary cites the shortened term "racism" in a quote from the following year, 1903.[13][14] It was first defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989) as "[t]he theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race"; the same dictionary termed racism a synonym of racialism: "belief in the superiority of a particular race". racialism, (what people used early on/since the beginnings of time/fuck know since when((assumed for the sake of argument/as placeholder, the origin and initial form is not known)), to differentiate between different groups of people; you morphed it into racism, gave it intent and heading(superiority, etc) and left the layman without the original meaning and the original word. (mainly, you replaced an/the ancestral word and its meaning) basically, people run to concepts that exemplify differences but reject the guilt. so, ethno-nationalism. now, before going <epithets>, realize that for some/many people, difference is good, is positive. maybe i should've wrote "there's no loaded word left to describe differences", but come on ... Edit: and those terms are similar in this context; they pertain to ethnicity(in research you use ethnicity when trying to not offend people by using the word race), ethnic variance. "The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race" has very little to do with Urinary bladder cancer or histology, unless you are seriously trying to tell me that ethno-nationalism is based upon incidence of Urinary bladder cancer and microvascular vasodilatory function. They are also neither distinctive nor are abilities for that matter, so you fail even by your own defintions; what you wrote is garbage anyways. Also, why the hell are you posting like fluidrone? It makes your posts almost impossible to understand, which is why people are talking around you about seperate political matters, rather than the total garbage you are writing. i don't care about your opinions of race; what it constitutes, what it embodies, what it portraits, what it expresses, what/if any value it has, etcetcetc. that article in Nature used the word race; go ask them what they fucking meant with it. i couldn't care less if you separate people based on ear shape, body hair or their ability to crack their knuckles then call them races and no one should care, but what they should care about is: once(if) you have them, what do you do with them?. there are no words/terms left to use in discussions with the lefties, words that can be agreed upon at the start of an argument so trying to skew loaded meanings by ways of synonyms, i figured, might work. well that's a big fat no, because even when one manages to make an argument (barely)tangentially related(which is an heroic feat btw), in this case to race, lefties would just move the goal post then act as if it justifies everything. Ex: someone mentioned race realism as if it has a more precise meaning or something but looking even at superficial definitions, some see it as literally racism while others as something opposed to race denialism, which is obviously one and the same thing to you ... ?. anyway, after you figure out what the rules are then maybe you'll be presented with arguments that are understandable.
There's tons of words in the English language, friend. If you ever want to not be seen as racist because you happened to say a racist-sounding thing, there's a nifty way to deal with that.
Funny enough, caring, being thoughtful and self-aware, and deferring to people who are closer to the issue than you are are great ways to not be offensive in a large number of ways.
|
On March 01 2019 09:06 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote:
that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say I think it's going to be difficult to answer you without knowing what rules you thought there were, and when you think they changed. Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 09:04 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote:
that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say When it comes to racism and consent, the historical reality is that no one wants to hear it. The debate about what they mean is born out of historical oppression of women and minorities. The resistance of men and dominate white culture(in the US) to accept these concepts and ton navigate their complexities. You are correct that the rulers have changed. But they have always been changing. The resistance to learning these rules is born out of a desire to not wanting to follow them at all. It is far easier to not worry if they are racist and not give a shit if a woman wanted to fuck them or not. It basically comes down to this. All my life I've been hearing/reading/seeing dudes talk about these amorphous "rules of dating", which never made any sort of sense to me, and ultimate amounted to little more than wanting to find any way to "crack the code" of just being a decent person and finding someone you like. It's one of the more harmless examples. If this is something that has been "changing", it's because it never had a real form to begin with.
well do you think there are rules and do you think they have changed? youve agreed with plansix here, who, as usual, has cooked up a contradictory gallimaufry of empty psychologizing, so im not sure where to start
maybe you could tell me whether you think #metoo changed anything
|
On March 01 2019 09:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 09:06 NewSunshine wrote:On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote:
that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say I think it's going to be difficult to answer you without knowing what rules you thought there were, and when you think they changed. On March 01 2019 09:04 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote:
that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say When it comes to racism and consent, the historical reality is that no one wants to hear it. The debate about what they mean is born out of historical oppression of women and minorities. The resistance of men and dominate white culture(in the US) to accept these concepts and ton navigate their complexities. You are correct that the rulers have changed. But they have always been changing. The resistance to learning these rules is born out of a desire to not wanting to follow them at all. It is far easier to not worry if they are racist and not give a shit if a woman wanted to fuck them or not. It basically comes down to this. All my life I've been hearing/reading/seeing dudes talk about these amorphous "rules of dating", which never made any sort of sense to me, and ultimate amounted to little more than wanting to find any way to "crack the code" of just being a decent person and finding someone you like. It's one of the more harmless examples. If this is something that has been "changing", it's because it never had a real form to begin with. well do you think there are rules and do you think they have changed? youve agreed with plansix here, who, as usual, has cooked up a contradictory gallimaufry of empty psychologizing, so im not sure where to start maybe you could tell me whether you think #metoo changed anything
Of course it has. It's reinforced the notion that you can't just treat women like shit without consequence, that it's not a good idea to try and plot out how you want to sexually harass them, and that treating them like humans on a person-by-person basis and erring on the side of respect is a generally good rule of thumb. The point is that there aren't hard rules that are changing. Just don't be a dick, mostly. That one's been around for donkey's years.
On March 01 2019 09:28 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 09:21 IgnE wrote:On March 01 2019 09:06 NewSunshine wrote:On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote:
that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say I think it's going to be difficult to answer you without knowing what rules you thought there were, and when you think they changed. On March 01 2019 09:04 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote:
that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say When it comes to racism and consent, the historical reality is that no one wants to hear it. The debate about what they mean is born out of historical oppression of women and minorities. The resistance of men and dominate white culture(in the US) to accept these concepts and ton navigate their complexities. You are correct that the rulers have changed. But they have always been changing. The resistance to learning these rules is born out of a desire to not wanting to follow them at all. It is far easier to not worry if they are racist and not give a shit if a woman wanted to fuck them or not. It basically comes down to this. All my life I've been hearing/reading/seeing dudes talk about these amorphous "rules of dating", which never made any sort of sense to me, and ultimate amounted to little more than wanting to find any way to "crack the code" of just being a decent person and finding someone you like. It's one of the more harmless examples. If this is something that has been "changing", it's because it never had a real form to begin with. well do you think there are rules and do you think they have changed? youve agreed with plansix here, who, as usual, has cooked up a contradictory gallimaufry of empty psychologizing, so im not sure where to start maybe you could tell me whether you think #metoo changed anything I think the point is the rules never changed. People just started to enforce them If you run a stop sign 100 times, and time 101 you get pulled over, you don't get to complain about a rule change.
Pretty much this.
|
On March 01 2019 09:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 09:06 NewSunshine wrote:On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote:
that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say I think it's going to be difficult to answer you without knowing what rules you thought there were, and when you think they changed. On March 01 2019 09:04 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote:
that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say When it comes to racism and consent, the historical reality is that no one wants to hear it. The debate about what they mean is born out of historical oppression of women and minorities. The resistance of men and dominate white culture(in the US) to accept these concepts and ton navigate their complexities. You are correct that the rulers have changed. But they have always been changing. The resistance to learning these rules is born out of a desire to not wanting to follow them at all. It is far easier to not worry if they are racist and not give a shit if a woman wanted to fuck them or not. It basically comes down to this. All my life I've been hearing/reading/seeing dudes talk about these amorphous "rules of dating", which never made any sort of sense to me, and ultimate amounted to little more than wanting to find any way to "crack the code" of just being a decent person and finding someone you like. It's one of the more harmless examples. If this is something that has been "changing", it's because it never had a real form to begin with. well do you think there are rules and do you think they have changed? youve agreed with plansix here, who, as usual, has cooked up a contradictory gallimaufry of empty psychologizing, so im not sure where to start maybe you could tell me whether you think #metoo changed anything
I think the point is the rules never changed. People just started to enforce them
If you run a stop sign 100 times, and time 101 you get pulled over, you don't get to complain about a rule change.
|
On March 01 2019 09:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 09:06 NewSunshine wrote:On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote:
that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say I think it's going to be difficult to answer you without knowing what rules you thought there were, and when you think they changed. On March 01 2019 09:04 Plansix wrote:On March 01 2019 08:50 IgnE wrote:
that’s blatantly ignorant and ahistorical of you to say When it comes to racism and consent, the historical reality is that no one wants to hear it. The debate about what they mean is born out of historical oppression of women and minorities. The resistance of men and dominate white culture(in the US) to accept these concepts and ton navigate their complexities. You are correct that the rulers have changed. But they have always been changing. The resistance to learning these rules is born out of a desire to not wanting to follow them at all. It is far easier to not worry if they are racist and not give a shit if a woman wanted to fuck them or not. It basically comes down to this. All my life I've been hearing/reading/seeing dudes talk about these amorphous "rules of dating", which never made any sort of sense to me, and ultimate amounted to little more than wanting to find any way to "crack the code" of just being a decent person and finding someone you like. It's one of the more harmless examples. If this is something that has been "changing", it's because it never had a real form to begin with. well do you think there are rules and do you think they have changed? youve agreed with plansix here, who, as usual, has cooked up a contradictory gallimaufry of empty psychologizing, so im not sure where to start maybe you could tell me whether you think #metoo changed anything
Personally I would start by using basic punctuation and capitalization.
|
United States24676 Posts
Uh, on another topic, a few days ago, a federal judge ruled that an all-male military draft was unconstitutional. It was not an injunction, so no immediate changes are required, but it implies that women would have to also register for selective service. I don't think it's getting a tremendous amount of attention because no immediate changes are required, but I really don't see any way around making both men and women register if the process as a whole isn't going anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
