🔥 Blakeyrat libelous racism
-
You're, like, one of the few oft-belligerent people on this forum who doesn't demonstrate blatant racism at every opportunity.
#SO WHY IS LIBELOUSLY ACCUSING PEOPLE OF BEING RACIST OK?
Filed under: please jeff this post
-
Racist.
-
-
Do I fit into the categories of either "oft-belligerence" (to Fox, anyway) or "blatantly racist"?
Just curious to see if my self-worth meter needs recalibration to Fox scales.
-
Just curious to see if my self-worth meter needs recalibration to Fox scales.
Why would you do that? If you get to his level, he'll beat you with experience.
Filed under: Non-serious
-
This thread is as stupid as a Mexican woman.
-
I hear those are supposed to be wise.
-
I hear those are supposed to be wise.
No, those are old Indian women. As long as you're white, they'll be wise and helpful and have advice. Because really, once they're old, that's all they're good for. Too icky to rape.
-
SO WHY IS LIBELOUSLY ACCUSING PEOPLE OF BEING RACIST OK?
It's not libel if it's true.
-
-
Do I fit into the categories of either "oft-belligerence" (to Fox, anyway) or "blatantly racist"?
I've seen pictures of you. Even though you're not American, you're white, so you're probably automatically racist by inference.
-
And I have a job that pays above the national average so I'm also clearly a privileged guy and need to check that?
-
How about a new category for Fox bait? Because I'd love to ignore it.
-
But any conversation on this forum can turn into Foxbait.
The problem is not that that the entire forum is a
hive of scum and villainyswathe of potential Foxbait. The problem is that a certain Fox feels the need to be baited at any opportunity, whether it was intentionally baiting or not because the power of social justice compels him.
-
But any conversation on this forum can turn into Foxbait.
It's a little sad he's given up his sjw nonsense though. I still think there was hours of fun to be had.The problem is not that that the entire forum is a
hive of scum and villainyswathe of potential Foxbait. The problem is that a certain Fox feels the need to be baited at any opportunity, whether it was intentionally baiting or not because the power of social justice compels him.Somethings are just aren't meant to be.
*edit porno tash emoji is the best emoji.
-
I was just surprised that he called @flabdablet out like that.
-
-
And I have a job that pays above the national average so I'm also clearly a privileged guy and need to check that?
You have been paying attention!
-
I was just surprised that he called @flabdablet out like that.
Intersectionality, man. Other SJWs are allies until there's a wedge.
-
-
-
@boomzilla said:
I was just surprised that he called @flabdablet out like that.
did I miss?
You just 'd on me trolling @Fox, I think. Obviously he was talking about a different group of people, presumably including me.
It amuses me that the last time I recall discussing anything race related with him, it was @Fox arguing that judging people by their skin color was a good thing.
-
It amuses me that the last time I recall discussing anything race related with him, it was @Fox arguing that judging people by their skin color was a good thing.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
-
Actually, wouldn't George Wallace's[1] 1963 inaugural address be the thing to cite?
The speech is most famous for the phrase "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever"
[1] a Democrat.
-
+∞ for extra irony
-
And a Republican (Abraham Lincoln) was adamant about freeing the slaves.
It's almost as if race relations are orthogonal to political party, huh.
-
And a Republican (Abraham Lincoln) was adamant about freeing the slaves.
It's almost as if race relations are orthogonal to political party, huh.
Buh? You didn't say anything that's a counterpoint to what I said. I called a particular Democrat a segregationist--which description he happily accepted at the time--and you mentioned a Republican that wasn't one. You needed a Republican who was a segregationist. "60 years ago Trent Lott" would fit the bill, although he changed his mine later.
-
Buh? Buh?? Buh!!?!??? Buh!?!?!??!???!?!??!?!
-
And a Republican (Abraham Lincoln) was adamant about freeing the slaves.
It's almost as if race relations are orthogonal to political party, huh.
I'm not big into American history, but haven't the roles of the two parties reversed at some point?
Like in Lincoln's time, the Democrats were the "populist" party, representing rural interests in the south and middle America. Basically, the redneck party. And Republicans were like the "progressive" party, representing urban areas. The "smart" people.
-
Buh? Buh?? Buh!!?!??? Buh!?!?!??!???!?!??!?!
There's a great screenshot in some PSP game where a bad guy character is surprised by someone and she says that. I used to have a picture on my cell phone but I lost it a couple phones ago.
-
Excellent rendition of the opening of Beethoven's Fifth.
-
@antiquarian said:
SO WHY IS LIBELOUSLY ACCUSING PEOPLE OF BEING RACIST OK?
It's not libel if it's true.
Too true.
As a German, I'm racist until I can substantiate that I take several things as scientifically proven facts, like that Pygmys aren't vertically challenged and that skin tone is absolutely independent of the distance of the ancestors' habitual residence from Earth's equator and the diet (mainly grains or not).
-
You already understand it better than most Americans. Here are maps of the 1904 and 2012 elections. Interesting how things have changed:
So yeah, the fact that Lincoln was a republican and Wallace supported segregation doesn't say much about today's parties. They seem to have taken on their current form as recent as the 70's/80's.
-
That graphic doesn't make any fucking sense. You don't even have all the states in the top one. What a load of photoshopping bullshit.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
That graphic doesn't make any fucking sense. You don't even have all the states in the top one. What a load of photoshopping bullshit.
Yeah, and there are other trends shown, like changes in population distribution (representatives being generally proportional to population (but even that changed over time)).
The relevant point is the change in party policies, and the parties predate those changes in population distribution and even some of the states.
@Lorne_Kates said:
What a load of photoshopping bullshit.
I don't think it originated as a photograph...
-
Heh...speaking of stupid accusations of racism:
https://twitter.com/evakalikoff/status/687846209424330752
https://twitter.com/justjudycarter/status/687842637445898240
https://twitter.com/JamesWolcott/status/687846006201954304
-
doesn't say much about today's parties.
I'd argue that democrats are still the ones that prefer minorities to stay in their place.
The fact that overt racists tend to like republicans because we are conservative is really just the fact that racists tend to be stuck in time for whatever reason.