Voting
-
You already conceded that white is not a race; it's the social designation of who deserves privilege in society. So I don't understand why you're talking out of both sides of baby's first mouth.
Mate, using your logic "black" isn't a race. This is also technically true, but not really how the term "race" is used. Taking your logic and applying it to this term that is widely accepted caloquially as a race, you end up being able to say that it's "impossible to be racist against black people" which would be seen as a racist remark.
-
Lets just say, they protested and did direct action. Which is more meaningful and has a greater positive effect than some kayfabe like voting.
Let's protect each other by being careful about what we say.
-
I was with you in the first half, until you said you don't vote. You're as much to blame for this shit as anyone
My vote in the last election LITERALLY WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED A GOD DAMNED THING.
Get the fuck over yourself and just let your high horse fuck you in the ass. Take your idealism elsewhere. Fucking exhausting.
-
Doing something is always better than doing nothing. You don’t get to cry if you did nothing, nobody should care about nothing, if you do nothing you are nothing. Stop fucking crying about it.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Strawman argument to presume a wasted vote is doing something, or that there are no other things to be doing.
I'm not crying about it. I'm telling fuckers who demand everyone vote to step the right fuck off their high horse and look around and see the math. It wouldn't have mattered for so many.
-
This would be an argument for not attending protests or volunteering. But voting takes basically no fucking effort.
That's a privileged take. The right wing has made voting a lot fucking harder for certain groups in certain places.
-
Strawman argument to presume a wasted vote is doing something, or that there are no other things to be doing.
I'm not crying about it. I'm telling fuckers who demand everyone vote to step the right fuck off their high horse and look around and see the math. It wouldn't have mattered for so many.
Do something or shut the fuck up and stop crying. If you sat on your hands then you don’t get to be mad, simple as.
-
Are you implying I should give a shit about something here? Cause I really don't. Try harder with an actual argument rather than an idiot popularity vote.
-
History shows that if the Dems regain full control, they will not reverse all this carnage 100%. They will reverse maybe 25% of it and pretend the rest isn't happening and maybe claim they don't have enough control and we'll hear the term bipartisan.
That's why I think we should keep the carnage at 100%
Weird take but ok
Always astonishing to me that I am either being cut lightly a thousand times or fucking gutted by a fish, and I'm angry about all of it and you all seem to think the mature answer is to be grateful for the light cutting cause it's "better" by comparison.
"A person can be smart, but people are stupid."
Most people are complete utter fucking morons about this. Enjoy voting for slower death and somehow finding a smugness in it.
-
Always astonishing to me that I am either being cut lightly a thousand times or fucking gutted by a fish, and I'm angry about all of it and you all seem to think the mature answer is to be grateful for the light cutting cause it's "better" by comparison.
"A person can be smart, but people are stupid."
Most people are complete utter fucking morons about this. Enjoy voting for slower death and somehow finding a smugness in it.
Don't complain. You said the options were 100% carnage, or 75% carnage, and because there's no 0% carnage option, you're happy letting 100% win. What people are trying to explain to you is that you should reduce harm as much as possible, even if you can't reduce it entirely.
-
Are you implying I should give a shit about something here? Cause I really don't. Try harder with an actual argument rather than an idiot popularity vote.
no i was just being unfunny and pointing out how at the moment i took the screenshot, the upvote-downvote counters were literally 1984
-
My vote in the last election LITERALLY WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED A GOD DAMNED THING.
Get the fuck over yourself and just let your high horse fuck you in the ass. Take your idealism elsewhere. Fucking exhausting.
Defeatist prick
-
This post did not contain any content.
Was it me? I bet it was me. That's okay, though. I probably wouldn't vote for me either.
-
Mate, using your logic "black" isn't a race. This is also technically true, but not really how the term "race" is used. Taking your logic and applying it to this term that is widely accepted caloquially as a race, you end up being able to say that it's "impossible to be racist against black people" which would be seen as a racist remark.
nah that's not my logic you're just a fucking moron
-
white isn’t a race it’s the social construct that means the absence of race
All "races" are social constructs, there are no biological races for our species and the way we define social races isn't even uniform across different cultures.
means the absence of race
And that is actually a profoundly racist statement that roots many portions of white supremacist ideology.
why it’s literally impossible to be racist against white people
While it's quite easy to argue that white people are in no danger of becoming ethnically prosecuted in most of western society, your statement that it's impossible to be racist against white people is got a built in logic contradiction and is therefore invalid by nature. Even without the contradiction, all it takes to take down a blanket statement like that is finding a counter-example, and that's so trivial I could find historical examples in less than five minutes.
And that is actually a profoundly racist statement
okay crakkker
-
nah that's not my logic you're just a fucking moron
Explain how it isn't? Typically once someone resorts to name calling in a discussion it's a good sign they know they're in the wrong.
-
Explain how it isn't? Typically once someone resorts to name calling in a discussion it's a good sign they know they're in the wrong.
wrote last edited by [email protected]fuck you
you explain how the shit you decided to write is my logic
fucking asshole pompous piece of shit hypocrite
self oblivious dumb motherfucker
-
I'm not the one confused, I understood Sahara just fine. I'm more confused why we're 10 comments deep into, essentially, Sahara's choice to use the word "never."
I'm asking this seriously: how do you handle sarcasm? Or hyperbole?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Depends on how tactfully they're used. I'm amazed a basic lesson on phrasing and tact is so far out of your league. This entire conversation is pathetic. For you.
-
Depends on how tactfully they're used. I'm amazed a basic lesson on phrasing and tact is so far out of your league. This entire conversation is pathetic. For you.
Okay, so the word "never" is being used here in its hyperbolic form to, tactfully, strengthen the rhetoric. It impassions the speech to deliver a point with more verve than another choice would.
The message is easy to receive. What is it you gain by being this needlessly contrarian?
-
fuck you
you explain how the shit you decided to write is my logic
fucking asshole pompous piece of shit hypocrite
self oblivious dumb motherfucker
wrote last edited by [email protected]Fine, I'll indulge you.
white isn't a race it's the social construct
This is both true and false. By all accepted definitions of race that I could find, white counts as a race. However, race as a concept is a social construct. Some folks back in the day decided to categorize people by things they have in common. (e.g. physical attributes, geographic location, genetics) However, this doesn't have any basis in science due to there being more genetic variation within the defined races than between them. Most biologists and anthropologists don't accept race as a scientifically valid biological classification.
that means the absence of race
This is false by all definitions of race. Race is just a collection of people sharing similar attributes, so the "white" race absolutely counts, considering all "white" people share a similar characteristic: skin color.
Irish stopped being a race when they were accepted into whiteness by becoming police in large number
This one threw me for a loop, as I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Irish is 100% still a race, as they are a group of people that can be defined by geographic location. There are groups that don't think they belong in the greater "white" race due to some historical beefs, but at the end of the day, most definitions of the "white" race include Irish folks, as they have white skin.
That's why it's literally impossible to be racist against white people
This part doesn't make sense. By the most common definitions of racist, it's possible to be racist against any given race. Some definitions of racist that I read in school did change that by adding a clause for racism being prejudice towards a marginalized group. In that case, it wouldn't be possible to be racist towards the greater "white" race, as they have never historically been marginalised. However, this definition of racist hasn't been widely accepted, as it almost exists to prevent being able to say racism towards the "white" race exists.
If you think that it's impossible to be racist towards a race that is all-encompassing like the "white" race, then, unless you're using a different definition of racist, then if would be equally impossible to be racist towards the all-encompassing "black" race.
No need to lash out just because people are calling you out for your misunderstanding of your own words. Given how your sentences are written, English might not be your first language, so there's a good chance that this misunderstanding comes from a translation or language barrier. Hopefully I have cleared things up!
-
Fine, I'll indulge you.
white isn't a race it's the social construct
This is both true and false. By all accepted definitions of race that I could find, white counts as a race. However, race as a concept is a social construct. Some folks back in the day decided to categorize people by things they have in common. (e.g. physical attributes, geographic location, genetics) However, this doesn't have any basis in science due to there being more genetic variation within the defined races than between them. Most biologists and anthropologists don't accept race as a scientifically valid biological classification.
that means the absence of race
This is false by all definitions of race. Race is just a collection of people sharing similar attributes, so the "white" race absolutely counts, considering all "white" people share a similar characteristic: skin color.
Irish stopped being a race when they were accepted into whiteness by becoming police in large number
This one threw me for a loop, as I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Irish is 100% still a race, as they are a group of people that can be defined by geographic location. There are groups that don't think they belong in the greater "white" race due to some historical beefs, but at the end of the day, most definitions of the "white" race include Irish folks, as they have white skin.
That's why it's literally impossible to be racist against white people
This part doesn't make sense. By the most common definitions of racist, it's possible to be racist against any given race. Some definitions of racist that I read in school did change that by adding a clause for racism being prejudice towards a marginalized group. In that case, it wouldn't be possible to be racist towards the greater "white" race, as they have never historically been marginalised. However, this definition of racist hasn't been widely accepted, as it almost exists to prevent being able to say racism towards the "white" race exists.
If you think that it's impossible to be racist towards a race that is all-encompassing like the "white" race, then, unless you're using a different definition of racist, then if would be equally impossible to be racist towards the all-encompassing "black" race.
No need to lash out just because people are calling you out for your misunderstanding of your own words. Given how your sentences are written, English might not be your first language, so there's a good chance that this misunderstanding comes from a translation or language barrier. Hopefully I have cleared things up!
wrote last edited by [email protected]This is both true and false. By all accepted definitions of race that I could find, white counts as a race.
"NU UH!!!"
Wow what an academic
Never seen someone just bullshit before while using quotation formatting. You're putting on a clinic of being a slimy dishonest asshole
Race is just a collection of people sharing similar attributes
Oh! Okay! So once you deliberately strip race of all cultural and material context white can be declared a race 'because they look the same'
Well if you're willing to just compartmentalize literally everything until your premise is affirmed then you can tell yourself anything, can't you?
You've chosen a definition of race that's completely useless for everything except one task: to be able to claim victimhood for the privileged class
Irish stopped being a race when they were accepted into whiteness by becoming police in large number This one threw me for a loop, as I’m not really sure what you mean by this.
HOW FUCKING STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO LECTURE SOMEONE WHEN YOU OPENLY ADMIT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON
REALLY FUCKING STUPID
Bet you're white. "My feelings are more important than your facts and I'm elevated from you enough to speak without even knowing them" is extremely white coded
