Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2019
- Messages
- 9,787
The Politics Megathread
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2018
- Messages
- 35
@bigtiddyoneesan
i have no intent to come back to this discussion with you, seeing as you have more than proven to me that you are some kind of racist, whether it be subconscious, or full blown nazi. considering trump has shown his white supremacist colors, he would be more appealing to the likes of you. goodnight, and go to hell.
I agree that high crime rates is a result of poverty, but poverty in black communities was manufactured by the white government when they handled the crack epidemic of the 80s with increased policing rather than healthcare. the war on drugs didnt help when they increased the sentences on drug-related offenses. not to mention marijuana. white and black people have always had about the same rates of marijuana users, but almost 4x more black people are arrested for having small amounts of marijuana than white people. this is due to the fact that white police want to keep their eye on black people over white people.
I agree that voter fraud is wrong, and can occur on both sides and that it is good to keep an eye on it. however, if you think that it is anywhere near right for a living person to be called illegal and refused basic human rights, then you are an absolutely self-absorbed narcissist without a hint of compassion.
in this political climate, if you think its wrong to punch a nazi square in the nose, you're no better than the nazis.
"mean things" is not hate speech. saying something racist is not just "offensive," it's bigoted, misinformed, and inherently dangerous.
"So is this proof positive that academic sociologists are science deniers? Not at all." "these scholars are resistant even to the least controversial evolutionary explanations, such as those involving hardwired tastes for certain foods or innate fears of poisonous critters." Your source goes against your point; or even if you wanted to ignore the first statement, the cases listed are entirely meaningless.
i have no intent to come back to this discussion with you, seeing as you have more than proven to me that you are some kind of racist, whether it be subconscious, or full blown nazi. considering trump has shown his white supremacist colors, he would be more appealing to the likes of you. goodnight, and go to hell.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2018
- Messages
- 35
@bigtiddyoneesan
marijuana usage rates are about equal across the border for white and black people, but almost 4x more black people get arrested on marijuana based charges. that is over-policing in black communities. over-policing leads to innocent people getting incarcerated, innocent people getting incarcerated leads to increased poverty and children growing up without a parent, increased poverty and children growing up without a parent lead to higher crime rates, and higher crime rates lead to over-policing. its a vicious cycle that needs to be ended.
*the rest of this comment was the same thing i just said but i wrote it again because it wasnt showing that it posted the first time due to an unfortunate error*
marijuana usage rates are about equal across the border for white and black people, but almost 4x more black people get arrested on marijuana based charges. that is over-policing in black communities. over-policing leads to innocent people getting incarcerated, innocent people getting incarcerated leads to increased poverty and children growing up without a parent, increased poverty and children growing up without a parent lead to higher crime rates, and higher crime rates lead to over-policing. its a vicious cycle that needs to be ended.
*the rest of this comment was the same thing i just said but i wrote it again because it wasnt showing that it posted the first time due to an unfortunate error*
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2020
- Messages
- 8,235
lmao
ofc you had to include them, ofc, OFC. If only people turned deaf when they showed up, then the movement would die down and they wouldn't exist anymore, sadly that isn't the case.
Yes, those guys are bad and might deserve a beating or two, but I'd rather see them in jail for the hatespeech you mention than myself for punching them. Remember that civilians are not the law, the police and judicial system is, as flawed as they are. Justice is blind.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2019
- Messages
- 9,787
@BAwesome2Me
Just to be perfectly clear here, I've never considered myself a Nazi, nor have I supported Nazi ideologies.
Yeah, I'm aware of this too. It's pretty bad, and I of course want the standard of living to go up. I believe in regular policing and actual decent education and social welfare programs. What some people don't realize is that the issue of police brutality is blown up by all the reporting on it, which is meant to cause a stir. There are far more pressing concerns when it comes to lifting up poor communities, and those concerns are overshadowed when an easily marketable issue takes center stage.
Lol. I don't really understand where the vitriol is coming from, as I thought this was just a discussion. You realize that to legally vote, you have to be a legal citizen though, right? Would it make sense for people traveling here from overseas countries, who are non-citizens, to have a say in our elections? No, it wouldn't. It's not dehumanizing in the least. I've personally known people who are illegal immigrants. I'm not going to report them or anything, as I realize they have their own circumstances, and frankly, getting a few people deported would not solve a larger issue.
Just to be perfectly clear here, I've never considered myself a Nazi, nor have I supported Nazi ideologies.
What is "hate speech" is very subjective, which is why there should never be legislation that take action against it.
Did you read the rest of the article though? That quote was talking about a specific case, and the other cases were very tame (I mean, it's WAPO after all) but still showed that there was resistance to scientific data.
I thought this was just a discussion lmao. It seems like you're letting negative emotions cloud your judgement here. I think it would be better for you to not use such combative language in the future when discussing sensitive topics, as it only pushes people away from your beliefs. Good night and best of luck.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,564
@bigtiddyoneesan Thanks, I didn't even realize but that reply is insane. (I hate when people vague post about you because of how passive aggressive it is, and it's kind of childish in my opinion.)
She's definitely not going to read this, but I feel obligated to defend myself nonetheless and respond
It's closer to 150-160 years ago when slavery ended, but that's semantics. It also projects the modern connotations of the word onto the past, where it was considered more inoffensive as it was a corruption of the Spanish-and ultimately Latin, term for "black." The reason it has its modern connotations was that it was used to detonate a slave, and so calling someone it was to imply they should still remain as a slave.
There term "American Indian," "Amerindian," "Indigenous American," etc. are all preferred over "Native American," because "Native American" is a term associated with the Nativist parties, which were known for their strict anti-immigrant status. In modern contexts, the various tribes and people who live near reservations don't partially like it because of its overinclusivity because each tribe and group is so radically different in terms of culture, traditions, etc. that lumping them all in as one group is disingenuous, and so they prefer either to be called by the name of their specific tribe, or if you refer to the various peoples of North America as a whole, you'd use the term "Ingenious Americans," "Amerindian," etc. There's many sources that have documented this, so I'm surprised you, as someone who claims to be Indigenous, yourself, wouldn't be aware of the terminology. Obviously the term of "Indian"/"Native American" arose because of the need to collectively refer to the pre-existing peoples of North America before settlers came, and most tribes didn't have a pre-existing term for the collective, because they didn't see themselves as one. An Iroquois has very little in common with an Apache, for example, as they have fundamentally conflicting cultures and world views.
So the long version would be just to refer to "your people" (a phrase I dislike because no one has ownership over the tribes as a whole) would be by the specific tribe you identify with, and not American Indians as a whole.
A) Nothing I have said here is racist or bigoted. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I have any bias against any group of people, or believe anyone is superior or inferior based on factors like skin color or ancestry. I have directly criticized such ideas in my posts here.
If I were to describe something as bigotted, it would probably be blocking someone because they challenged my beliefs or because of a conflict of terminology rather than engaging with their arguments.
I suppose it's because I draw most of my philosophy from the East, but I'm reminded of a quote from the Tao Te Ching:
A great nation is like a great man:
B) I very clearly am not trying to pretend I am from Asia, because I outright said I'm from Indiana and America. I just like history and I find Tamerlane interesting particularly as this badass figure who is simultaneously a great leader, patron of culture and the arts, yet somehow also this brutal warlord that lived in a time where the black death was ravishing Europe and all these great empires of old were falling apart. (Plus as @Bigtiddyoneesan said, there's comedic potential in this grizzled picture of a warlord commenting on manga about waifus) I think you've projected your own biases onto me, because I do not see an issue with using historical figures as profile or to have an alias based on them.
Aside from that, I do not see how this is relevant to any of my points or the overall conversation being had because it's all meant to characterize me as someone who wants to use racial slurs, which doesn't make sense because I argued that it was not a racial slur, so you snuck the premise in to infer motives, and secondly I don't see how having a picture of a Turco-Mongolian Warlord gives me any ethos in the social ability to talk about terminology for indigenous Americans. Is it because Tamerlane wasn't white that it lead you to conclude this line of reasoning, because I've had this name and avatar for over a year at this point, and that would be a very, very long time to put up a charade like that to give me ethos on a manga forum.
C) Tamerlane didn't control pretty much any of India, aside from Delhi but that's a small fraction of the subcontinent that historically has been everything from Greek to Arab, so it's not blatantly wrong to say a man who had a Turco-Mongolian Ancestry and had his capital (Samarkand) within the Middle East was South Asian. It would be like calling someone from Japan "Chinese."
It was his descendants, The Mughuals who managed to conqueror most of India centuries after his death that you are confusing him with, such as the legendary Akbar the Great, who was known for his tolerance and vast array of scholars, philosophers, artists, etc. that he had in his court. I'm getting off topic, but I think you understand my point by now
B) If you had actually read the post beyond the first sentence, I acknowledge that issue, but the amount it was spread was inconsequential when you consider that most of the disease was spread without any deliberate measures that could be taken. Most of the spreading of smallpox would have happened naturally and unintentionally just through contact, and would have happened regardless. I directly pointed all this out in my post.
C) The Nazi Death camps are very clearly different from what America did, as America never had a systematic extermination policy to completely erase all of the American Indians from the country. This point is a complete red herring to try and draw a parallel between the Nazis and the Americans, where the Holocaust was deliberate and systematic, the vast majority of the deaths due to disease happened before the Americans even showed up, and were caused by it naturally spreading. This is an absurd comparison.
(Also, if we're bringing up ancestry as if it's valid, my Great Grandfather and Grandmother were both imprisoned in concentration camps during the Holocaust because he was apart of the French Resistance. And I have volunteered at a Holocaust museum before, so this really isn't an argument you want to get into me about)
B) That happened BEFORE the United States of America was a country. Salem was a colony of the British because the Puritans were too extreme for the Anglican church. You can't blame that on the US when there was no US, and it does not undermine my point when I specifically explained in detail how the US progressed to have the values it has within its modern institutions, because it's undeniable that with things like the Tolerance Acts, and the fact the colonies had a mix of Quakers, Catholics, Puritans, etc., with various religious traditions, the drive to unify had to encode religious freedom within its government to prevent infighting, especially in such extreme survival conditions
C) There weren't any actual witches in Salem. That's the whole point! Everyone prosecuted was a Puritan like the rest of the people in the colony! I don't see how this has to do with religious freedom when most of it was based on girls seeking attention and McCarthyism more than actual witchcraft.
@Richman I don't even want to get started on what your argument is like. This one alone took too much mental strain
She's definitely not going to read this, but I feel obligated to defend myself nonetheless and respond
It's closer to 150-160 years ago when slavery ended, but that's semantics. It also projects the modern connotations of the word onto the past, where it was considered more inoffensive as it was a corruption of the Spanish-and ultimately Latin, term for "black." The reason it has its modern connotations was that it was used to detonate a slave, and so calling someone it was to imply they should still remain as a slave.
There term "American Indian," "Amerindian," "Indigenous American," etc. are all preferred over "Native American," because "Native American" is a term associated with the Nativist parties, which were known for their strict anti-immigrant status. In modern contexts, the various tribes and people who live near reservations don't partially like it because of its overinclusivity because each tribe and group is so radically different in terms of culture, traditions, etc. that lumping them all in as one group is disingenuous, and so they prefer either to be called by the name of their specific tribe, or if you refer to the various peoples of North America as a whole, you'd use the term "Ingenious Americans," "Amerindian," etc. There's many sources that have documented this, so I'm surprised you, as someone who claims to be Indigenous, yourself, wouldn't be aware of the terminology. Obviously the term of "Indian"/"Native American" arose because of the need to collectively refer to the pre-existing peoples of North America before settlers came, and most tribes didn't have a pre-existing term for the collective, because they didn't see themselves as one. An Iroquois has very little in common with an Apache, for example, as they have fundamentally conflicting cultures and world views.
So the long version would be just to refer to "your people" (a phrase I dislike because no one has ownership over the tribes as a whole) would be by the specific tribe you identify with, and not American Indians as a whole.
A) Nothing I have said here is racist or bigoted. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I have any bias against any group of people, or believe anyone is superior or inferior based on factors like skin color or ancestry. I have directly criticized such ideas in my posts here.
If I were to describe something as bigotted, it would probably be blocking someone because they challenged my beliefs or because of a conflict of terminology rather than engaging with their arguments.
I suppose it's because I draw most of my philosophy from the East, but I'm reminded of a quote from the Tao Te Ching:
A great nation is like a great man:
B) I very clearly am not trying to pretend I am from Asia, because I outright said I'm from Indiana and America. I just like history and I find Tamerlane interesting particularly as this badass figure who is simultaneously a great leader, patron of culture and the arts, yet somehow also this brutal warlord that lived in a time where the black death was ravishing Europe and all these great empires of old were falling apart. (Plus as @Bigtiddyoneesan said, there's comedic potential in this grizzled picture of a warlord commenting on manga about waifus) I think you've projected your own biases onto me, because I do not see an issue with using historical figures as profile or to have an alias based on them.
Aside from that, I do not see how this is relevant to any of my points or the overall conversation being had because it's all meant to characterize me as someone who wants to use racial slurs, which doesn't make sense because I argued that it was not a racial slur, so you snuck the premise in to infer motives, and secondly I don't see how having a picture of a Turco-Mongolian Warlord gives me any ethos in the social ability to talk about terminology for indigenous Americans. Is it because Tamerlane wasn't white that it lead you to conclude this line of reasoning, because I've had this name and avatar for over a year at this point, and that would be a very, very long time to put up a charade like that to give me ethos on a manga forum.
C) Tamerlane didn't control pretty much any of India, aside from Delhi but that's a small fraction of the subcontinent that historically has been everything from Greek to Arab, so it's not blatantly wrong to say a man who had a Turco-Mongolian Ancestry and had his capital (Samarkand) within the Middle East was South Asian. It would be like calling someone from Japan "Chinese."
It was his descendants, The Mughuals who managed to conqueror most of India centuries after his death that you are confusing him with, such as the legendary Akbar the Great, who was known for his tolerance and vast array of scholars, philosophers, artists, etc. that he had in his court. I'm getting off topic, but I think you understand my point by now
A) It's not hate speech as it does not incite violence, or dehumanize/slander any group of people.
B) If you had actually read the post beyond the first sentence, I acknowledge that issue, but the amount it was spread was inconsequential when you consider that most of the disease was spread without any deliberate measures that could be taken. Most of the spreading of smallpox would have happened naturally and unintentionally just through contact, and would have happened regardless. I directly pointed all this out in my post.
C) The Nazi Death camps are very clearly different from what America did, as America never had a systematic extermination policy to completely erase all of the American Indians from the country. This point is a complete red herring to try and draw a parallel between the Nazis and the Americans, where the Holocaust was deliberate and systematic, the vast majority of the deaths due to disease happened before the Americans even showed up, and were caused by it naturally spreading. This is an absurd comparison.
(Also, if we're bringing up ancestry as if it's valid, my Great Grandfather and Grandmother were both imprisoned in concentration camps during the Holocaust because he was apart of the French Resistance. And I have volunteered at a Holocaust museum before, so this really isn't an argument you want to get into me about)
A) I didn't claim this country was based solely on religious freedom, but that it was the first step to expanding the idea of equality under the law and not having discrimination within the country due to how divided the Europeans were at the time. I was not arguing the only thing that made America good was religious freedom but that it was a step on the road to trying to end other injustices such as racism
B) That happened BEFORE the United States of America was a country. Salem was a colony of the British because the Puritans were too extreme for the Anglican church. You can't blame that on the US when there was no US, and it does not undermine my point when I specifically explained in detail how the US progressed to have the values it has within its modern institutions, because it's undeniable that with things like the Tolerance Acts, and the fact the colonies had a mix of Quakers, Catholics, Puritans, etc., with various religious traditions, the drive to unify had to encode religious freedom within its government to prevent infighting, especially in such extreme survival conditions
C) There weren't any actual witches in Salem. That's the whole point! Everyone prosecuted was a Puritan like the rest of the people in the colony! I don't see how this has to do with religious freedom when most of it was based on girls seeking attention and McCarthyism more than actual witchcraft.
@Richman I don't even want to get started on what your argument is like. This one alone took too much mental strain
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2020
- Messages
- 8,235
@sterven
That "sexual violence" tag makes me nervous, anything I should worry about?
@Tamerlane
It was about the imigration thing, but I wasn't able to express myself properly without sounding like a tyrant.
That "sexual violence" tag makes me nervous, anything I should worry about?
Nah, everything is fine, we haven't even served dinner yet.
@Tamerlane
It was about the imigration thing, but I wasn't able to express myself properly without sounding like a tyrant.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,564
@Richman I heard Mexico is really against illegal immigration because it doesn't want its population to be drained.
I kinda go by the philosophy of if they've been in the US for over 14 years, they should be granted citizenship, but otherwise, they should be sent back.
It's more because I don't think it's fair to people who immigrate legally, and especially because of issues of human trafficking and other shady shit that happens at the border
I kinda go by the philosophy of if they've been in the US for over 14 years, they should be granted citizenship, but otherwise, they should be sent back.
It's more because I don't think it's fair to people who immigrate legally, and especially because of issues of human trafficking and other shady shit that happens at the border
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2018
- Messages
- 937
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2020
- Messages
- 8,235
Probably the States that depend on workforce.
Nah, do it the proper way.
Being deported is the least dangerous thing that could happen to them tbh. My brain juice is low rn, so I can't really say what I want properly. Maybe another day.
@blackyawgdom
Don't worry, unlike sterven, I can dodge them easily.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2019
- Messages
- 9,787
Good vid. I'd subscribe if I actually logged into Schmoogle on the reg.
Add one random Cherokee girl to the list of deaths directly caused by Timur on the Wikipedia page.
It's true. Richman has a dick sensor when it comes to fictional characters. Wild stuff, I know.
Supporter
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Messages
- 4,462
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2020
- Messages
- 8,235
It's more of a "something's wrong, I can feel it" sensor, it isn't strictly related to D-girls, it can be plot points, characters, entire titles that I bail out of without even reading the first page.
- Status
Similar threads
