|
On December 15 2017 06:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 00:39 Nevuk wrote:
Can we tone down the open, blatant racism a bit? Oh, this is just rich. Buckle up. You’re too sensitive to one side of the debate. Your definitions are overbroad and you can simply not respond if somehow what someone said was past culturally insensitive and into blatant racism by your appraisal. It doesn’t do anyone any good continually pointing and shrieking when opinions on immigration, terrorism, and cultural/civilizational conflict come up with which you disagree. Grow some thicker skin, like the people you accuse of racism have done. You might want to be in a privileged sphere with the right opinions and the wrong racist opinions, but you’re not, and the previous election should’ve helped you with an intellectual transformation. That last thing we need is the anti-debate crowd doubling down again on what things are not subject to open discussion. I don’t want another insufferable 2016 election, but goddamn you’re making a compelling case right about now.
I haven't read the thread in >300 pages so I'm a bit lacking in context, but by "the previous election" I assume you don't mean this past Tuesday?
|
On December 15 2017 09:45 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 06:10 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2017 00:39 Nevuk wrote:
Can we tone down the open, blatant racism a bit? Oh, this is just rich. Buckle up. You’re too sensitive to one side of the debate. Your definitions are overbroad and you can simply not respond if somehow what someone said was past culturally insensitive and into blatant racism by your appraisal. It doesn’t do anyone any good continually pointing and shrieking when opinions on immigration, terrorism, and cultural/civilizational conflict come up with which you disagree. Grow some thicker skin, like the people you accuse of racism have done. You might want to be in a privileged sphere with the right opinions and the wrong racist opinions, but you’re not, and the previous election should’ve helped you with an intellectual transformation. That last thing we need is the anti-debate crowd doubling down again on what things are not subject to open discussion. I don’t want another insufferable 2016 election, but goddamn you’re making a compelling case right about now. I haven't read the thread in >300 pages so I'm a bit lacking in context, but by "the previous election" I assume you don't mean this past Tuesday?
You've got some catching up to do 
I caught up on 700 after a 11 day vacation (earlier this year), and it didn't take very long. Enjoy all the poorly concealed racism and do give your thoughts here. You know there's something hot if Nevuk and Farva are rattled.
|
On December 15 2017 06:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 00:39 Nevuk wrote:
Can we tone down the open, blatant racism a bit? Oh, this is just rich. Buckle up. You’re too sensitive to one side of the debate. Your definitions are overbroad and you can simply not respond if somehow what someone said was past culturally insensitive and into blatant racism by your appraisal. It doesn’t do anyone any good continually pointing and shrieking when opinions on immigration, terrorism, and cultural/civilizational conflict come up with which you disagree. Grow some thicker skin, like the people you accuse of racism have done. You might want to be in a privileged sphere with the right opinions and the wrong racist opinions, but you’re not, and the previous election should’ve helped you with an intellectual transformation. That last thing we need is the anti-debate crowd doubling down again on what things are not subject to open discussion. I don’t want another insufferable 2016 election, but goddamn you’re making a compelling case right about now.
Or you are super racist and should just tone down your shit.
|
On December 15 2017 01:15 farvacola wrote:
Yeah, there's a point where just letting these people casually assert that millions of other people are dangerous monsters does more harm than good.
It really feels like some poster keep pushing the limit to see what they can get away with. And we are now getting these completely fictional histories about colonialism and Africa.
|
On December 15 2017 11:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 06:10 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2017 00:39 Nevuk wrote:
Can we tone down the open, blatant racism a bit? Oh, this is just rich. Buckle up. You’re too sensitive to one side of the debate. Your definitions are overbroad and you can simply not respond if somehow what someone said was past culturally insensitive and into blatant racism by your appraisal. It doesn’t do anyone any good continually pointing and shrieking when opinions on immigration, terrorism, and cultural/civilizational conflict come up with which you disagree. Grow some thicker skin, like the people you accuse of racism have done. You might want to be in a privileged sphere with the right opinions and the wrong racist opinions, but you’re not, and the previous election should’ve helped you with an intellectual transformation. That last thing we need is the anti-debate crowd doubling down again on what things are not subject to open discussion. I don’t want another insufferable 2016 election, but goddamn you’re making a compelling case right about now. Or you are super racist and should just tone down your shit.
Yeah, your side’s been crying wolf for decades. It turns out that “toning down your shit” matters jack shit. Now you’ve moved onto calling white supremacy on everything, and I wonder what’s next? I don’t see reapproachment on that topic until 2020, perhaps. Dems will want to win elections and make people forget 2016 invective eventually.
|
On December 15 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 11:48 Plansix wrote:On December 15 2017 06:10 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2017 00:39 Nevuk wrote:
Can we tone down the open, blatant racism a bit? Oh, this is just rich. Buckle up. You’re too sensitive to one side of the debate. Your definitions are overbroad and you can simply not respond if somehow what someone said was past culturally insensitive and into blatant racism by your appraisal. It doesn’t do anyone any good continually pointing and shrieking when opinions on immigration, terrorism, and cultural/civilizational conflict come up with which you disagree. Grow some thicker skin, like the people you accuse of racism have done. You might want to be in a privileged sphere with the right opinions and the wrong racist opinions, but you’re not, and the previous election should’ve helped you with an intellectual transformation. That last thing we need is the anti-debate crowd doubling down again on what things are not subject to open discussion. I don’t want another insufferable 2016 election, but goddamn you’re making a compelling case right about now. Or you are super racist and should just tone down your shit. Yeah, your side’s been crying wolf for decades. It turns out that “toning down your shit” matters jack shit. Now you’ve moved onto calling white supremacy on everything, and I wonder what’s next? I don’t see reapproachment on that topic until 2020, perhaps. Dems will want to win elections and make people forget 2016 invective eventually.
Look, it's been established that you wouldn't call burning a cross on Obamas lawn racism. So let the people who understand what racism discuss it.
|
|
|
On December 15 2017 06:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 00:39 Nevuk wrote:
Can we tone down the open, blatant racism a bit? Oh, this is just rich. Buckle up. You’re too sensitive to one side of the debate. Your definitions are overbroad and you can simply not respond if somehow what someone said was past culturally insensitive and into blatant racism by your appraisal. It doesn’t do anyone any good continually pointing and shrieking when opinions on immigration, terrorism, and cultural/civilizational conflict come up with which you disagree. Grow some thicker skin, like the people you accuse of racism have done. You might want to be in a privileged sphere with the right opinions and the wrong racist opinions, but you’re not, and the previous election should’ve helped you with an intellectual transformation. That last thing we need is the anti-debate crowd doubling down again on what things are not subject to open discussion. I don’t want another insufferable 2016 election, but goddamn you’re making a compelling case right about now.
I don't have any issues with your posting, actually
|
On December 15 2017 12:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2017 11:48 Plansix wrote:On December 15 2017 06:10 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2017 00:39 Nevuk wrote:
Can we tone down the open, blatant racism a bit? Oh, this is just rich. Buckle up. You’re too sensitive to one side of the debate. Your definitions are overbroad and you can simply not respond if somehow what someone said was past culturally insensitive and into blatant racism by your appraisal. It doesn’t do anyone any good continually pointing and shrieking when opinions on immigration, terrorism, and cultural/civilizational conflict come up with which you disagree. Grow some thicker skin, like the people you accuse of racism have done. You might want to be in a privileged sphere with the right opinions and the wrong racist opinions, but you’re not, and the previous election should’ve helped you with an intellectual transformation. That last thing we need is the anti-debate crowd doubling down again on what things are not subject to open discussion. I don’t want another insufferable 2016 election, but goddamn you’re making a compelling case right about now. Or you are super racist and should just tone down your shit. Yeah, your side’s been crying wolf for decades. It turns out that “toning down your shit” matters jack shit. Now you’ve moved onto calling white supremacy on everything, and I wonder what’s next? I don’t see reapproachment on that topic until 2020, perhaps. Dems will want to win elections and make people forget 2016 invective eventually. Look, it's been established that you wouldn't call burning a cross on Obamas lawn racism. So let the people who understand what racism discuss it.
That was a line you spammed against me actually, and it's not getting wittier with each recycling.
|
If we divide what people call racists into two categories this may make more sense : malicious vs incidental. A woman clutching her purse when a black man gets on the elevator isn't being malicious. Nor do I even think they're necessarily a bad person.
A malicious racist is like the virulent anti semites who literally want to burn Jews or commit genocide. They're a different breed. They're also being more and more brazen. We have someone literally advocating genocide in the thread. I don't think it is too far to complain about it.
When danglars says he is afraid of the slippery slope about drapping flags over statues I believe him. Same thing for being unsupportive of kneeling during the anthem, or support of GOP policies that have negative effects on ethnicities. I think his support of those policies really is mostly incidental to race. It is possible to have a discussion about the racial impact those things have and whether it is worth the price to address them. Those are real conversations.
People started using racist to describe that style of thought as opposed to the malicious racists because they thought malicious racism was mostly gone or a laughing stock. Much of political life in america in the 20th century has been about truly racist people packaging their messages in ways that would appeal to those who are just incidental about it (Willie Horton for example). Most people are at least a little bit incidentally racist (there's an MIT test out there about it to check preference), which is why it is important for people to communicate with other groups and see what the effects of certain policies are.
I'm mainly only referring to the "actually, Africa would never have achieved anything without white people crowd so colonialism was a good idea" crowd when I was talking about open, naked racism.
|
On December 15 2017 12:57 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 12:00 Plansix wrote:On December 15 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2017 11:48 Plansix wrote:On December 15 2017 06:10 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2017 00:39 Nevuk wrote:
Can we tone down the open, blatant racism a bit? Oh, this is just rich. Buckle up. You’re too sensitive to one side of the debate. Your definitions are overbroad and you can simply not respond if somehow what someone said was past culturally insensitive and into blatant racism by your appraisal. It doesn’t do anyone any good continually pointing and shrieking when opinions on immigration, terrorism, and cultural/civilizational conflict come up with which you disagree. Grow some thicker skin, like the people you accuse of racism have done. You might want to be in a privileged sphere with the right opinions and the wrong racist opinions, but you’re not, and the previous election should’ve helped you with an intellectual transformation. That last thing we need is the anti-debate crowd doubling down again on what things are not subject to open discussion. I don’t want another insufferable 2016 election, but goddamn you’re making a compelling case right about now. Or you are super racist and should just tone down your shit. Yeah, your side’s been crying wolf for decades. It turns out that “toning down your shit” matters jack shit. Now you’ve moved onto calling white supremacy on everything, and I wonder what’s next? I don’t see reapproachment on that topic until 2020, perhaps. Dems will want to win elections and make people forget 2016 invective eventually. Look, it's been established that you wouldn't call burning a cross on Obamas lawn racism. So let the people who understand what racism discuss it. That was a line you spammed against me actually, and it's not getting wittier with each recycling.
My criticism has not changed at all. You and others sole focus is to tamp down any discussion of racism through claiming the term is over used. You are either uncomfortable or offended by the terminology used by people that wish to discuss the many forms of racial bias. Your goal is to divert the topic to the mythical left over use of the racism every time.
Someone asked if the racism could be toned down in the thread and Danglars flipped his shit. The discussion wasn't even about him, but the very idea that anyone in the thread might be seen as a racist was to much for him. Meanwhile one of the posters that caused that comment to be made was banned for racism.
Stop trying to derail dicssions about racism and I'll stop calling you ignorant on the subject of racism.
|
On December 15 2017 13:01 Nevuk wrote:
If we divide what people call racists into two categories this may make more sense : malicious vs incidental. A woman clutching her purse when a black man gets on the elevator isn't being malicious. Nor do I even think they're necessarily a bad person.
A malicious racist is like the virulent anti semites who literally want to burn Jews or commit genocide. They're a different breed. They're also being more and more brazen. We have someone literally advocating genocide in the thread. I don't think it is too far to complain about it.
When danglars says he is afraid of the slippery slope about drapping flags over statues I believe him. Same thing for being unsupportive of kneeling during the anthem, or support of GOP policies that have negative effects on ethnicities. I think his support of those policies really is mostly incidental to race. It is possible to have a discussion about the racial impact those things have and whether it is worth the price to address them. Those are real conversations.
People started using racist to describe that style of thought as opposed to the malicious racists because they thought malicious racism was mostly gone or a laughing stock. Much of political life in america in the 20th century has been about truly racist people packaging their messages in ways that would appeal to those who are just incidental about it (Willie Horton for example). Most people are at least a little bit incidentally racist (there's an MIT test out there about it to check preference), which is why it is important for people to communicate with other groups and see what the effects of certain policies are.
I'm mainly only referring to the "actually, Africa would never have achieved anything without white people crowd so colonialism was a good idea" crowd when I was talking about open, naked racism.
I get the draw of the idea that malicious intent is required for real racism. It is palpable and inviting. But I reject it because people can be racist and have the best of intents. They can tolerate someone of another race dating their child and still be racist. They can be racist while smiling at someone warmly.
I'm struck by comedian's(who's name I cannot remember) story about dating a white girl and being liked by her family, but them not wanting to take her to prom. They were comfortable with him kissing their daughter, eating with them, supporting him as a person. But being in photos was to much. What would their relatives thing? Those relatives wouldn't understand him, so it shouldn't happen. That people could be that racist and smile at him while they did it. And truly believe they were being kind.
That needs to be racism too. It can't just be malice. Tolerance isn't enough on its own.
|
On December 15 2017 12:57 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 12:00 Plansix wrote:On December 15 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2017 11:48 Plansix wrote:On December 15 2017 06:10 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2017 00:39 Nevuk wrote:
Can we tone down the open, blatant racism a bit? Oh, this is just rich. Buckle up. You’re too sensitive to one side of the debate. Your definitions are overbroad and you can simply not respond if somehow what someone said was past culturally insensitive and into blatant racism by your appraisal. It doesn’t do anyone any good continually pointing and shrieking when opinions on immigration, terrorism, and cultural/civilizational conflict come up with which you disagree. Grow some thicker skin, like the people you accuse of racism have done. You might want to be in a privileged sphere with the right opinions and the wrong racist opinions, but you’re not, and the previous election should’ve helped you with an intellectual transformation. That last thing we need is the anti-debate crowd doubling down again on what things are not subject to open discussion. I don’t want another insufferable 2016 election, but goddamn you’re making a compelling case right about now. Or you are super racist and should just tone down your shit. Yeah, your side’s been crying wolf for decades. It turns out that “toning down your shit” matters jack shit. Now you’ve moved onto calling white supremacy on everything, and I wonder what’s next? I don’t see reapproachment on that topic until 2020, perhaps. Dems will want to win elections and make people forget 2016 invective eventually. Look, it's been established that you wouldn't call burning a cross on Obamas lawn racism. So let the people who understand what racism discuss it. That was a line you spammed against me actually, and it's not getting wittier with each recycling.
Thanks for clarifying. I was going to ask him when the hell that was clarified.
|
On December 15 2017 12:29 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 06:10 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2017 00:39 Nevuk wrote:
Can we tone down the open, blatant racism a bit? Oh, this is just rich. Buckle up. You’re too sensitive to one side of the debate. Your definitions are overbroad and you can simply not respond if somehow what someone said was past culturally insensitive and into blatant racism by your appraisal. It doesn’t do anyone any good continually pointing and shrieking when opinions on immigration, terrorism, and cultural/civilizational conflict come up with which you disagree. Grow some thicker skin, like the people you accuse of racism have done. You might want to be in a privileged sphere with the right opinions and the wrong racist opinions, but you’re not, and the previous election should’ve helped you with an intellectual transformation. That last thing we need is the anti-debate crowd doubling down again on what things are not subject to open discussion. I don’t want another insufferable 2016 election, but goddamn you’re making a compelling case right about now. I don't have any issues with your posting, actually
Puzzled at what’s so blatant then lol. I assumed it was Muslims or African civ and I posted some on both.
|
2774 Posts
On December 15 2017 14:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 12:29 Nevuk wrote:On December 15 2017 06:10 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2017 00:39 Nevuk wrote:
Can we tone down the open, blatant racism a bit? Oh, this is just rich. Buckle up. You’re too sensitive to one side of the debate. Your definitions are overbroad and you can simply not respond if somehow what someone said was past culturally insensitive and into blatant racism by your appraisal. It doesn’t do anyone any good continually pointing and shrieking when opinions on immigration, terrorism, and cultural/civilizational conflict come up with which you disagree. Grow some thicker skin, like the people you accuse of racism have done. You might want to be in a privileged sphere with the right opinions and the wrong racist opinions, but you’re not, and the previous election should’ve helped you with an intellectual transformation. That last thing we need is the anti-debate crowd doubling down again on what things are not subject to open discussion. I don’t want another insufferable 2016 election, but goddamn you’re making a compelling case right about now. I don't have any issues with your posting, actually Puzzled at what’s so blatant then lol. I assumed it was Muslims or African civ and I posted some on both.
He might be referring to ShakeN_blake, who is now banned.
|
Pretty sure it is the other advocate for an ethnostate too
|
On December 15 2017 13:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 13:01 Nevuk wrote:
If we divide what people call racists into two categories this may make more sense : malicious vs incidental. A woman clutching her purse when a black man gets on the elevator isn't being malicious. Nor do I even think they're necessarily a bad person.
A malicious racist is like the virulent anti semites who literally want to burn Jews or commit genocide. They're a different breed. They're also being more and more brazen. We have someone literally advocating genocide in the thread. I don't think it is too far to complain about it.
When danglars says he is afraid of the slippery slope about drapping flags over statues I believe him. Same thing for being unsupportive of kneeling during the anthem, or support of GOP policies that have negative effects on ethnicities. I think his support of those policies really is mostly incidental to race. It is possible to have a discussion about the racial impact those things have and whether it is worth the price to address them. Those are real conversations.
People started using racist to describe that style of thought as opposed to the malicious racists because they thought malicious racism was mostly gone or a laughing stock. Much of political life in america in the 20th century has been about truly racist people packaging their messages in ways that would appeal to those who are just incidental about it (Willie Horton for example). Most people are at least a little bit incidentally racist (there's an MIT test out there about it to check preference), which is why it is important for people to communicate with other groups and see what the effects of certain policies are.
I'm mainly only referring to the "actually, Africa would never have achieved anything without white people crowd so colonialism was a good idea" crowd when I was talking about open, naked racism. I get the draw of the idea that malicious intent is required for real racism. It is palpable and inviting. But I reject it because people can be racist and have the best of intents. They can tolerate someone of another race dating their child and still be racist. They can be racist while smiling at someone warmly. I'm struck by comedian's(who's name I cannot remember) story about dating a white girl and being liked by her family, but them not wanting to take her to prom. They were comfortable with him kissing their daughter, eating with them, supporting him as a person. But being in photos was to much. What would their relatives thing? Those relatives wouldn't understand him, so it shouldn't happen. That people could be that racist and smile at him while they did it. And truly believe they were being kind. That needs to be racism too. It can't just be malice. Tolerance isn't enough on its own.
Hasan Minhaj. His stand-up special was great all around.
|
On December 15 2017 23:47 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 13:21 Plansix wrote:On December 15 2017 13:01 Nevuk wrote:
If we divide what people call racists into two categories this may make more sense : malicious vs incidental. A woman clutching her purse when a black man gets on the elevator isn't being malicious. Nor do I even think they're necessarily a bad person.
A malicious racist is like the virulent anti semites who literally want to burn Jews or commit genocide. They're a different breed. They're also being more and more brazen. We have someone literally advocating genocide in the thread. I don't think it is too far to complain about it.
When danglars says he is afraid of the slippery slope about drapping flags over statues I believe him. Same thing for being unsupportive of kneeling during the anthem, or support of GOP policies that have negative effects on ethnicities. I think his support of those policies really is mostly incidental to race. It is possible to have a discussion about the racial impact those things have and whether it is worth the price to address them. Those are real conversations.
People started using racist to describe that style of thought as opposed to the malicious racists because they thought malicious racism was mostly gone or a laughing stock. Much of political life in america in the 20th century has been about truly racist people packaging their messages in ways that would appeal to those who are just incidental about it (Willie Horton for example). Most people are at least a little bit incidentally racist (there's an MIT test out there about it to check preference), which is why it is important for people to communicate with other groups and see what the effects of certain policies are.
I'm mainly only referring to the "actually, Africa would never have achieved anything without white people crowd so colonialism was a good idea" crowd when I was talking about open, naked racism. I get the draw of the idea that malicious intent is required for real racism. It is palpable and inviting. But I reject it because people can be racist and have the best of intents. They can tolerate someone of another race dating their child and still be racist. They can be racist while smiling at someone warmly. I'm struck by comedian's(who's name I cannot remember) story about dating a white girl and being liked by her family, but them not wanting to take her to prom. They were comfortable with him kissing their daughter, eating with them, supporting him as a person. But being in photos was to much. What would their relatives thing? Those relatives wouldn't understand him, so it shouldn't happen. That people could be that racist and smile at him while they did it. And truly believe they were being kind. That needs to be racism too. It can't just be malice. Tolerance isn't enough on its own. Hasan Minhaj. His stand-up special was great all around.
That story was really a bummer.
|
On December 15 2017 14:32 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 14:23 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2017 12:29 Nevuk wrote:On December 15 2017 06:10 Danglars wrote:On December 15 2017 00:39 Nevuk wrote:
Can we tone down the open, blatant racism a bit? Oh, this is just rich. Buckle up. You’re too sensitive to one side of the debate. Your definitions are overbroad and you can simply not respond if somehow what someone said was past culturally insensitive and into blatant racism by your appraisal. It doesn’t do anyone any good continually pointing and shrieking when opinions on immigration, terrorism, and cultural/civilizational conflict come up with which you disagree. Grow some thicker skin, like the people you accuse of racism have done. You might want to be in a privileged sphere with the right opinions and the wrong racist opinions, but you’re not, and the previous election should’ve helped you with an intellectual transformation. That last thing we need is the anti-debate crowd doubling down again on what things are not subject to open discussion. I don’t want another insufferable 2016 election, but goddamn you’re making a compelling case right about now. I don't have any issues with your posting, actually Puzzled at what’s so blatant then lol. I assumed it was Muslims or African civ and I posted some on both. He might be referring to ShakeN_blake, who is now banned.
I guess, but it was like the day after his last post. No clue.
|
seems kinda feedbacky, so putting their post in here:
On December 20 2017 23:47 Danglars wrote:Very rich. StealthBlue’s bulletins of of civil unrest and literally starvation. The bar is set very, very low for thread tweets if inane hysteria by blue checks passes muster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
