As you probably already know, Islam is not a race. It's a religion. A choice. Muhammad was an unambiguously evil man, so I'm not going to apologize for being wary of anyone who willingly follows his teachings. As far as I'm concerned, it's no different than avoiding neo-Nazis. As for Mexicans, or any other immigrant, I have no problem with them. I honestly don't. All I really ask is that they come here legally. Of course, it wouldn't bloody kill them to learn English, but that's a different rant. No, I'm not a racist, but I do sometimes find it hard not to be. I grew up poor. I work construction. Most of my exposure to different races has been negative, because I've mostly only ever dealt with the lowest classes of humanity. I understand that the people that I've had these experiences with are not representative of their entire race, but at the same time, it's really hard to remember that after so much unpleasantness. Basically, I've just had bad luck with other races. When I say that I struggle with racism, what I mean is that I've reached a point that I have to actively remind myself not to make judgements based on race. Being non-judgemental used to come naturally to me. It doesn't anymore. But, I would like to make something clear: I don't owe you any kind of explanation. You know damn well what racism is, and you know damn well that nothing I post on this site denigrates other based solely on race. I'm only posting this because I don't want your slanderous bull*squee!* seeping into the heads of the people on this site that I do give a damn about. I'm hoping that most of them know me well enough to realize that I'm not the kind of person that you're trying to make me out to be.
Yeah, he's hiding because he did it. Anyways, that's not the point. And you not trusting the CIA isn't the point either. The point is that the soon to be President of the USA is casting doubt on his own country's intelligence agencies in public, without a filter, and blindly trusting another source. I don't know of proof from either side, to me it's a he said vs. they said thing right now. And who's right about the hacking isn't the point either. Also, what does the CIA have to do with the DNC? And does being a hypocrite automatically make what they say wrong? Just because they've done it too, doesn't mean they are wrong. But again, I've not seen proof either way and if it's true or not is not my point.
I think the greater concern should be that our own intelligence agencies are so susceptible to bias and corruption. And yeah, that goes for how they operated under Bush, too. And Clinton, for that matter. I don't remember Reagan, since I was like five when he left office, but I'm sure the CIA was probably crooked under him, too.
All religion is a choice. Perhaps you should tell the relatives of Christians murdered by ISIS that the victims could have chosen not to be part of a category of people targeted by them. Somalis and Arabs are also profiled because of their ethnicity and skin color; bigots associate them with Islam (some Arabic Christians have been assaulted for "looking Muslim" by anti-Muslim fanatics). Racism and anti-Muslim sentiment typically go hand-in-hand. You complain about Islamic terrorism while predominantly Muslim groupings like the Kurds are actually doing something about ISIS. I've already proven above that The Bible also calls for genocide and other barbarities (writings from "unambiguously evil" people). But we again deal with special pleading (a contention predicated on a logical fallacy is invalid by default); Christian terrorists don't get to spoil the whole barrel, but Islamic ones do. Basic research would reveal that US intervention overseas is largely responsible for the spread of Jihadism (you hinted at this in a certain sense when you pointed out that the policies of Obama and Hillary Clinton played a role in the rise of ISIS, but it seems there is now a reversion away from it). Hatred of all Muslims is justified under the guise of religion being a choice. It doesn't take a background in Human Resources or civil rights law to know that the act of attacking Mexicans because of the alleged actions of a taco vendor is an act of racial prejudice. Whipping up hysteria against "illegals" has resulted in cases of Hispanics being profiled. Why does an immigrant get blamed for crossing a border to a nation where he/she lacks citizenship, yet a corporation that puts a factory across the border where its owner(s) lack citizenship doesn't get such treatment? Millions of immigrants are deliberately kept in an illegal status to increase profitability in industries that cannot be easily offshored (such immigrants can be blackmailed into accepting less than minimum wage, staying non-union, etc.). The purpose of the hysteria is to get American workers (legal vs. illegal) to fight over the few crumbs they are given instead of uniting against the bosses keeping both of them down. Surely you have dealt with rotten whites somewhere. It may be easier to identify the others as "outsiders" in a given way, but logically, that holds no water. And while you struggle with anecdotal occurrences and extrapolation of them over an entire group, the people actually causing problems for us breathe a sigh of relief that your attention is diverted from them (capitalists offshoring jobs to maximize profitability, US politicians who backed Islamists in Syria, Wall Street, lobbyists, wealthy tax dodgers, etc.). Most Hispanics, legal or not, are simply trying to work for a living. I have much more in common with them than those who "represent" me on Capitol Hill. How do you even benefit from these things with which you say you struggle? At the end of the day, it isn't You wouldn't be making threats, resorting to insults, or making a reply in the first place if you actually believed any this. On the one hand, this is a vain attempt to make this look like this is some sort of vendetta on my behalf (it's actually simply a matter of me opposing racism and objecting to insults against non-white friends and colleagues; I don't see anyone else posting such things). Additionally, it isn't defamation if it happens to be true. You have implied that LGBT people should have not been granted civil rights by the Supreme Court (the letter of the law is applied to "illegals," but it goes out the window when it interferes with your interests). You loathe Muslims, who you accuse of being terrorists, in addition to comparing them to Neo-Nazis. If a Muslim commits an act of terrorism, the Muslims as a whole are responsible. When a Christian commits an act of terrorism, the individual is blamed (quotation marks are even used for the subject of Christian terrorism!). Numerous examples of non-fundamentalist Muslims are "Liberal Logic 101". General facts and elementary logic are "Liberal Logic 101". A common trend in your special pleading is that it is often done on the behalf of predominantly white groups. Your tone in response to "bull*squee!*" and its "seeping" is lacking in confidence (my "Liberal Logic 101" is clearly viewed as a threat). Either offer concrete rebuttals or stop digging yourself into a hole by saying such things. They don't benefit you on the internet. They don't benefit you in the real world. They only benefit those who are trying to gain something from you at your expense. There is more productive capacity in the United States that can be profitably used. We're dealing with artificially imposed scarcity and deteriorating living standards so a small oligarchy can enjoy reaping its privileged position. People are becoming more aware of this (so many, in fact, that the DNC had to rig a primary to prevent the creation of a movement over which they could have lost control) . Little wonder they want to divert our attention away from this with various bogeymen (the classic one of Russian "communism" collapsed a quarter of a century ago). Assange is guilty because...Dragonbait says he happens to be guilty. Similar treatment (if not worse) to what Chelsea Manning received (conditions which drove her to attempt suicide) is in store for Assange if the US government gets its hands on him. I can't blame someone being in hiding in order to avoid such treatment. Trump is casting doubt on yet another institution in what some call an era of "Post-Truth Politics"? Water also happens to freeze at zero degrees Celsius.
Interesting. Your inability to offer an actual argument is only rivaled by your inability to do anything about these people you loathe. Demographic changes are going to continue to give these people you despise increased political clout. Let us continue to watch if any beneficial effects result from the consumption of Trump snake oil.
Perhaps, for the sake of others, it would be best to take this discussion elsewhere or something. Especially since some tempers can't be kept, it seems. I'm still interested, however.
Yeah Lost, you're one not helping, two this is why people are f****** sick of you. No we don't wish you ill but we do wish you'd bloody learn to read the temperature. Xan rightfully asked to steer away from the current trend and you just piled more *squee!* on top of it.
Xan's right. My response and any continuation of this shall be moved back into https://www.everypony.com/threads/trump-wins-now-what.19304 Thanks!
Anyway... so, I'm curious about something. What would y'all say is an appropriate movie spoiler window? Obviously not while it's still in theaters, but how long? Should you wait until it's out on video or up on Netflix? 'Cause I really wanna talk about Rogue One.
Spoiler tags can always be used, but I would say after theatres end its run. I'd say major spoilers should still be put in spoiler tags, virtually no matter what. There's generally quite a time between theatres and home media, in which most people won't be able to catch up and watch it anyway, so either just after theatre run has ended, or is available locally.
In an attempt to steer in a different direction... With Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney: Spirit of Justice complete... I'm officially moved on to Pokemon Sun. Because I'm still waiting on a walkthrough for Final Fantasy XV. It's all good though. It's actually... pretty fun so far.
EP should totally have a civil war. Like, make it a freakin' event, with ranks and badges for the different sides and one of those ribbons under the username for the winning side.
Guys, just so you know, this is supposed to be the bad guy, not a role model. *Looks around* Ah crap, I'm a few months late it seems.
Sounds cool. There could even be a counter for how much popcorn the peanut gallery consumes. ...Which I'd probably come in last in, since I'm off popcorn on doctor's orders.
Been thinking more about it. I think if we do it right, we could actually do the site some good. Got a few ideas. Post 'em later. Of course, the obvious first thing to decide is what we'd be fighting about. It'd have to be something that a lot of people disagree on, but at the same time not serious enough to actually cause any real arguments.
