Lurker > Nemu

From the statements themselves, it doesn't inherently mean she is racist. It depends on if "go back to your country" is being equated to "you're of an ethnicity that does not belong in this country." Is it about his skin color or where he is from that is her problem? Regardless, I think it should still be considered a hate crime. Still a scumbag either way, but you'd need a bit more info to definitely say she's a racist scumbag.

Solar_Crimson posted...

spikethedevil posted...

I agree only if neo nazi groups and the KKK face the same sentencing.

This.

But under Trump's America's it's unlikely. It's a springtime for White nationalism right now.

Not that I agree with anything the neo nazis or KKK stand for, but, other than the one prime example of Charlottesville, how often is either group in the news for starting physical violence? Both groups should be socially reviled for sure, but the problem with antifa is the indiscriminate violence bolstered by masked anonymity. Nobody wants to make their gatherings illegal because they are a bunch of morons like the other two groups.

That is a good thing. Being against a disgusting ideology does not stop one's own ideology from being disgusting. And half the time, you can't tell if they want to fight people who hold actual nazi beliefs or some guy they just label as a nazi because they have the mindset of a group of five year olds yelling about cooties.

Only way it would make sense is as a temporary sacrifice to get yourself on track to a better position/living situation, but there are people who just do it as a matter of course.

Regardless of the intentions of the TC, the fact that some people truly think something cannot be offensive because it isn't comparatively as bad as something else is a pretty sad mindset.

I would never want to raise a child in that situation. If I had a wife and she was dead set against it and wanted to raise the child, that could very likely lead to me leaving her. That would just be decades of hell.

Actually, thinking about it, someone who might use the word "chap" might use "boy" endearingly without meaning anything derogatory about it.

I think most people would get offended by it regardless, and depending on the context used, it definitely could register as much more offensive to a black person. The only real appropriate context would be endearingly calling someone "my boy."

I have no particular love for Trump, but has he actually done anything far worse than other presidents so far?

smoke_break posted...

nemu posted...

In itself, it is not inherently racist.

You serious?

What about a person painting their face to be that of another race is racist? The only racist aspect is if somebody makes a purposefully crafted racist caricature out of it, or if someone unintentionally perpetuates a racist stereotype. There is, in American culture, more of a sensitivity to blackface in general, which is why caution should be applied to even non-racist renditions, but the problem is that people get instantly outraged without looking at any context.

Imagine a world in which American slavery didn't happen. I doubt anybody would care. Unless minstrel shows can be traced back to Europe. Honestly no idea on the wider history ofit.

Webmaster4531 posted...

Another person who doesn't get blackface is literally in the name.

And? In itself, it is not inherently racist. The racist part is the decades of mockery of a very specific style of makeup and acting. You can say that it's a sensitive subject for sure, but to cry outrage at every single instance without at all looking at the context of each instance is insanity. If an Asian person, in ignorance or on purpose, put on minstrel show makeup and perpetuated various stereotypes, that would be offensive. If an Asian person simply puts on black makeup for the purpose of a role that in no way mocks black people, then there is nothing at all offensive about it. The second example is what people need to stop crying about. Context matters.

smoke_break posted...

nemu posted...

smoke_break posted...

nemu posted...

Why is it that everything has to be tied back to a practice that has been dead for a very long time?

Blackface in entertainment actually still happens. Japan has done it on a number of occasions in recent times.

What kind of blackface? Actual mocking blackface, or "let's get offended over the notion of someone putting black makeup on their face with no ill intentions" blackface?

Blackface is blackface.

Here's an instance of it still happening.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42561815

No, it's people getting offended over nothing, if there is no offense meant. If it is not an attempt to mock black people and there is no unintentional racism, there is nothing to be offended about. Lumping all instances of painting a person's face into a very specific and very old form of mockery is disingenuous and stupid.

smoke_break posted...

nemu posted...

Why is it that everything has to be tied back to a practice that has been dead for a very long time?

Blackface in entertainment actually still happens. Japan has done it on a number of occasions in recent times.

What kind of blackface? Actual mocking blackface, or "let's get offended over the notion of someone putting black makeup on their face with no ill intentions" blackface?

They need to make sure they aren't trafficking drugs, weapons, or children. Not everybody coming through is just a good person looking for a better life.

Need to actually play it. Got to world 5 in SMW like two months ago and haven't picked it up again.

Why is it that everything has to be tied back to a practice that has been dead for a very long time? I doubt anyone has held an official minstrel show outside of maybe a private KKK meeting in decades, if not close to 100 years. Yes, the practice is offensive, but the act of someone painting their face black is not blackface in that context. If someone professionally paints their face to dress as Obama, they are not doing that to mock the Obama or the features of black people. I'm sure there have been people who have done the blackface stereotype as a costume, and people would be right to be offended at that particular depiction.

What if the perfect girl is a billionaire?

I thought the world used to be black and white like old television.

No, there is currently no danger. Now, if the current white guilt social justice type mindset becomes commonplace over the next few decades, then it could become a problem. Though that happening is pretty much non-existent because most of those people are seen as laughingstocks by the general public.

Honestly, a kid is something you have plenty of time to prepare for, so I feel like America's makes more sense. It could maybe be extended a little bit, but a full year is nuts.

Sucks for them, and certain policies should change, but it's ultimately the parents' faults for being scumbags.

No, that's dumb. Now, what would be fine would be to try to institute some kind of obesity = child abuse measure. Though that likely wouldn't work because trying to enforce it would be a nightmare.

While it's still scary as fuck, definitely lost the cool factor.

joestarrr posted...

nemu posted...

It's called either being a pretentious asshole or being a crybaby depending on which party is in the right. Gendering the term is just literal sexism.

Even when the person doing it is clearly actually mansplaining?

He also told a female nurse that women don't have prostates, when she jokingly said a certain food would be good for her prostate.
This dude literally thinks that nurses of 5+ years don't even know their own fucking anatomy ... like ... for real.

He's either an asshole or bad at returning a joke. That has nothing to do with him being a man. The term acts like only men are condescending assholes. If we had a women-based version and both were used commonly, there would be no problem, but the whole narrative of the term is to apply some kind of weird standard to men specifically

It's called either being a pretentious asshole or being a crybaby depending on which party is in the right. Gendering the term is just literal sexism.

Yeah, the only dumber thing I've ever heard was a person who follows that narrative explain the circumstance of one minority being racist towards another minority and how that isn't really racist either.

Sure, it's very likely that intelligent life exists somewhere in the universe, but it could be 50 billion lightyears away. There's basically no chance of it happening unless it turns out warp technology is a thing.

I feel bad for these people, but the US cannot help everybody. While being detained, they should not be subjected to cruel conditions, but that's about the best we can do for the grand majority of people trying to get into the country.

Is this like a joke site or something?

The main problem with stuff like this is people aren't actually arguing against each other most of the time. It's all just strawman vs strawman.

Probably not. 50,000 horrible criminals, sure, but the chance of random good people dying would be too much.

No, as it is impossible. The only thing society should do is encourage people not to shame others who do things differently.

The main problem is that it's both a real thing and hyperbole. One real aspect of it can be seen in Marvel comics where they hired a ton of writers that pushed SJW bunk nobody cared about, and it resulted in poor sales of those works.

Then a false example is people complaining about Rey and Finn being main characters in the new Star Wars as pushing an agenda.

If the wall would actually be effective in keeping a good percentage of people out and wouldn't be a massive money pit in terms of long-term upkeep, it should be built. It doesn't really matter if it is cost effective in the short term, as long as it actually does something productive for the next fifty to one hundred years. If it will do nothing to impact illegal immigration by a significant amount and will cost billions per year in constant upkeep, then it's pointless.

Webmaster4531 posted...

nemu posted...

Webmaster4531 posted...

nemu posted...

The only time that should happen due to social outrage is if it turns out the person was known to have brutally killed or raped slaves.

Why? What Robert E. Lee did is terrible too.

I have no particular idea what he did in general, seeing as the topic isn't actually about him. But my main sentiment is that we don't need to erase people simply for having owned slaves or fought for the south. They should not be venerated for being involved in slavery, but they should also not be demonized just for the act of slavery. It should only be if they were also a disgusting person on top of that.

I disagree. J.E.B. Stewart fought for the Confederate Army, that enough reason for a school to change their name.

Why? He's long dead. The war is long over. It's literal history. As I said, the school can change its name for whatever reason. I just find this whole false outrage of "oh yeah, we still have a lot of southern civil war stuff around, let's purge it!" idea sort of silly. Something being named after them is not inherently an endorsement of what they stood for or did, and I find it unlikely literally everyone who fought during the war had an opinion either way about slavery. Many were probably fighting simply because they lived in the south, and the south was fighting. I'm not sure about this person in particular though.

Webmaster4531 posted...

nemu posted...

The only time that should happen due to social outrage is if it turns out the person was known to have brutally killed or raped slaves.

Why? What Robert E. Lee did is terrible too.

I have no particular idea what he did in general, seeing as the topic isn't actually about him. But my main sentiment is that we don't need to erase people simply for having owned slaves or fought for the south. They should not be venerated for being involved in slavery, but they should also not be demonized just for the act of slavery. It should only be if they were also a disgusting person on top of that.

Pretty dumb overall to make a stink about it after nearly 100 years. They can name the school whatever they want, but the only reason I'm sure it's happening is that a few crybabies won't shut up about it. The only time that should happen due to social outrage is if it turns out the person was known to have brutally killed or raped slaves. People owned slaves back then. The fought to own slaves. That is wrong, but that how the climate of society was back then.

I get that Trump is by no means a good person, but I will never understand this push to make him Hitler 2.0 in the eyes of the public.

If it was the perfect scenario with the absolute love of my life, sure. Otherwise, it would greatly depend on the circumstances.

Sayoria posted...

nemu posted...

COVxy posted...

So you criticize that intersex people are unrelated, then ignore chromosomes to bring up genitals. Sayoria has a vagina, thanks for verifying she's a woman. <3

And then you bring up sports and society which are unrelated. What the fuck.

No, she has penis that has been modified to resemble a vagina. There is a difference.

The problem with bringing up intersex people is that you're acting like it's some golden goose. The fact that they do not fall into the normal definition of sex does not mean the normal definition of sex is lacking or wrong. They are deformed. It doesn't mean they are lesser people because of it, but that's all it is. People being born with more or less fingers does not mean we need to redefine the idea of how hands work.

The point about sports and society is that transpeople should be accepted and not discriminated against for being transpeople. The problem with people of your mindset is that you want to extend that further and dictate how people have to think.

Can I has sex like a woman? Yes.
Must I pee like a woman? Yes.
Can women who are born with a vagina be unable to give birth to babies? Yes.

So like.... what difference does it make if mine is neo or not?

Similarly, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a cosmetic change (in terms of what it actually is at the end of the day, a surgically modified penis). It's perfectly fine for someone to be attracted to you, and I would not classify it as "gay" for someone to have sex with you. I will gladly call you female with no hesitation, but that does not change the base biological reality. If that is not an issue for some people, all the power to them.

COVxy posted...

So you criticize that intersex people are unrelated, then ignore chromosomes to bring up genitals. Sayoria has a vagina, thanks for verifying she's a woman. <3

And then you bring up sports and society which are unrelated. What the fuck.

No, she has penis that has been modified to resemble a vagina. There is a difference.

The problem with bringing up intersex people is that you're acting like it's some golden goose. The fact that they do not fall into the normal definition of sex does not mean the normal definition of sex is lacking or wrong. They are deformed. It doesn't mean they are lesser people because of it, but that's all it is. People being born with more or less fingers does not mean we need to redefine the idea of how hands work.

The point about sports and society is that transpeople should be accepted and not discriminated against for being transpeople. The problem with people of your mindset is that you want to extend that further and dictate how people have to think.

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

1) "biological males" is still based entirely upon using general rules regarding chromosomes and applying it as a universal truth
2) it ignores intersex people
3) gender confirmation surgery is reconstructive, not cosmetic and especially if you know anything about functionality post surgery
4) "real women" is another term that's been coined solely to diminish the validity of trans identities
5) it's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy
All "real women" have xx chromosomes and have menses and can have kids
While ignoring prepubescent people, post menopausal people, etc.
6) and you can't even prove most trans people's chromosomes unless you phenotype them. Making the assumption might be right most of the time but I could tell you that there's nobody breaking into cars in a downtown parking lot and more often than not it's true, doesn't mean there's actually scientific backing to that assumption

It's a universal truth that men are men and women are women. I don't know why you think that can be argued against. The idea that gender expression can be a bit more fluid is one thing, but you're trying to change biological reality. There's being progressive and then being disingenuous.

Like, the idea of bringing intersex people into it is just dumb. That is an unfortunate deformity. It's not a new sex. It does not redefine sex. When people bring it up, they act like intersex people are fully function hermaphrodites or something. It's a series of conditions, some worse than others.

It adds nuance. No, I'm not saying intersex people are a new sex. I'm saying they'd still have to fit somewhere in the spectrum between male and female. And guess what? That means that xxy people would be classified as either male or female. And even then there's some who might have androgen sensitivity and never develop a penis. It adds nuance and that's precisely why it gets brought up, to demonstrate that "xx is girl xy is boy" is not some universal truth and that all people are only one are the other, it's that there's far more configurations that fit under both or either.

No, it means there are some deformities in humans. It has nothing to do with the wider discussion of males and females. It's disingenuous to bring them into this topic of discussion. And honestly, chromosomes really do not need to be brought into the discussion at all. If you have a penis, you're biologically male. If you have a vagina, you're biologically female. Someone of either sex can choose to live as the opposite sex. At the end of the day, that is all that is happening. I will call any trans person by their preferred pronoun, but that does not actually change the underlying reality.

Transpeople should not be allowed to play segregated competitive sports as it introduces unfair conditions. The majority of people will not want to actively date them. The only thing society should do is not shame transpeople for living how they want to live. It should not have to bend over backwards change reality.

gunplagirl posted...

1) "biological males" is still based entirely upon using general rules regarding chromosomes and applying it as a universal truth
2) it ignores intersex people
3) gender confirmation surgery is reconstructive, not cosmetic and especially if you know anything about functionality post surgery
4) "real women" is another term that's been coined solely to diminish the validity of trans identities
5) it's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy
All "real women" have xx chromosomes and have menses and can have kids
While ignoring prepubescent people, post menopausal people, etc.
6) and you can't even prove most trans people's chromosomes unless you phenotype them. Making the assumption might be right most of the time but I could tell you that there's nobody breaking into cars in a downtown parking lot and more often than not it's true, doesn't mean there's actually scientific backing to that assumption

It's a universal truth that men are men and women are women. I don't know why you think that can be argued against. The idea that gender expression can be a bit more fluid is one thing, but you're trying to change biological reality. There's being progressive and then being disingenuous.

Like, the idea of bringing intersex people into it is just dumb. That is an unfortunate deformity. It's not a new sex. It does not redefine sex. When people bring it up, they act like intersex people are fully function hermaphrodites or something. It's a series of conditions, some worse than others.

gunplagirl posted...

K181 posted...

COVxy posted...

K181 posted...

COVxy posted...

The inference to be made here if you say "I 100% would never date a transperson because I'm heterosexual" is that you still don't view them as their transitioned gender. Pretty clear how that's transphobic.

Again... we're at the point where people are rightfully arguing for respect for sexual preferences and gender identies, and yet the notion that there could be a sexual preference for cisgendered men or women is a no go?

I mean, that doesn't make much sense. It's like saying I'm sapiosexual or whatever those made up orientations are. If you're in the realm of making up biologically implausible sexual orientations to justify your own lack of acceptance, you've made a wrong turn. At least simply admit that you don't see them as truly their identified gender and the thought of them as their pretransition state freaks you out.

Yeah, you're just looking for things to be upset at this point if your rational is that it's "biologically implausible" to have a sexual orientation more exclusionary than your own or inventing states of mind for people that have them. You're attracted to trans and cis people? Good for you. You think that there's zero possible reason that someone could be only attracted to cis people? Quit being so close minded.

I can safely say that there isn't a cisgendered guy that attacts me. Does that make me a homophobe? If yes, that's a dumb take. If no, how's that different if you changed "cis" with "trans?"

If you're straight then you aren't into men. If you are straight you're into women. Trans women are women. If you exclude all trans women from your dating pool it's because you don't consider them women. That's the difference.

It's like you're trying to change reality. Transwomen are biological males living as women, either with or without cosmetic surgery. I will gladly say they they are female and call them women, as that is polite, but that does not change the fact that they are not "real women." There is nothing offensive at all about that.

I will never understand the "real woman" argument. It's like a false catch-22, trying to get the people to go along with that narrative at the risk of otherwise being "offensive." At the end of the the day, a transwoman is a transwoman. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but the vast majority of people will not see them as a dating partner. I will gladly refer to them as female, but there is no circumstance where I would ever see a transwoman as a dating partner.

I think the major problem is that if there is an actual problem that affects primarily white people, it gets swept into the neo nazi discourse. The idea of white genocide and nation-wide white discrimination is total nonsense, but people will ignore actual discrimination if it happens because "it's not as bad as group X."

So there probably are actual "good people" who will go to this, being misled by idiots like Spencer and the event organizer. Then they'll get more drawn into it as they think they're being attacked for being white, and then we get more "white nation" morons.

I feel like this just falls under general addiction. There's substance addiction affecting your brain, and then there's the chemical imbalance in your head addiction.

This really should be a non-thing nobody should care about, but of course the guy organizing it is a piece of trash. The concept is fairly dumb, but that in itself really shouldn't get people up in arms.

MikeGesicki posted...

@nemu

You make me sick.

We can afford to spend trillions of dollars fighting wars in the Middle East.

We are giving MILLIONS OF $ in tax breaks to big business that will never trickle down to the middle class.

Our president wants us to fund a fucking wall with taxpayer money that will do absolutely nothing for border security.

And you think we dont have the resources to house refugees who are escaping certain death.

Get the fuck out of here.

Again, how many? See, if you would say something like "I think we should take in XX% more refugees than the current XX%", then you're living in reality. The problem, at least from what I can tell from your posts, is you're going with the mindset "people are suffering = let's help them." That does not take into account the resources needed to do so. Should we accept tens of thousands more, or would you think we could let the entire population of Mexico and any South American country in turmoil?

MikeGesicki posted...

@nemu

Dont fucking tell me that we should treat CHILDREN like a number. If your ancestors didnt RAPE and MURDER the native Americans that lived in this country, YOU WOULDNT BE HERE EITHER.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Yes, we should because resources are not infinite. If you cannot propose a reasonable solution, you are not living in reality. And I like how you're being racist against white people, and assuming I'm white/have ancestry that can be traced back to the times of colonization just because I'm not being a bleeding heart with no particular solution.