Nike, Kaepernick and Arizona... - Page 13 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15020777
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, since such a statement would support my claims, so I will simply agree.


Fair enough however that does prove my intial argument, that saying racism is "widespread" is a generic term which lacks integrity without a bias or opinion attacked to it.
#15020794
BigSteve wrote:It's actually that you're agreeing with me, since I'm the one who said it...


That is unimportant.

The fact that you find any racism "insignificant" is disgusting. No racism is insignificant, except to those who choose to use racism as a tool with which they hope to gain some political advantage (but which always fails)...


Your opinion of my argument is irrelevant.

You also agreed that the racism targeted at white people has no state support, is not a longstanding US tradition, is not systemic, and is not institutional.

You also agreed that there is no discrimination, and that white people are not deprived of anything because of said racism.

If we define “significant racism” as meaning “racism that has previously or currently enjoyed state support, is part of a longstanding tradition, and is or has been systemic and institutional”, then your emotional outburst is not necessary or indicative of moral superiority.

————————

Finfinder wrote:Fair enough however that does prove my intial argument, that saying racism is "widespread" is a generic term which lacks integrity without a bias or opinion attacked to it.


No, it does not support your criticism.

And the fact that you ignored the evidence I presented, which clarified what is meant by widespread, makes this whole criticism irrelevant.
#15020799
Pants-of-dog wrote:That is unimportant.


Of course you think that, because if I said it first it would make you look silly.

Congratulations. You look silly...

Your opinion of my argument is irrelevant.


And of course you would say that, too, because I rightly identify your disgusting position regarding racism. The fact of the matter is that, in some instances, you're perfectly fine with it...

You also agreed that the racism targeted at white people has no state support, is not a longstanding US tradition, is not systemic, and is not institutional.


I have never made those statements anywhere. Why do you insist on making hit uip?

Oh, that's right... you're a liberal and that's what libs do...

You also agreed that there is no discrimination, and that white people are not deprived of anything because of said racism.


Again, you're making shit up. You are dishonest to a fault...

If we define “significant racism” as meaning “racism that has previously or currently enjoyed state support, is part of a longstanding tradition, and is or has been systemic and institutional”, then your emotional outburst is not necessary or indicative of moral superiority.


And if we define it as "anything that's done to someone because of race" then your argument fails.

I believe ANY racism is bad. You, on the other hand, believe that only racism against blacks is bad.

That's supremely fucked up...
#15020810
BigSteve wrote:Of course you think that, because if I said it first it would make you look silly.

Congratulations. You look silly...


I do not care what you think of me.

And of course you would say that, too, because I rightly identify your disgusting position regarding racism. The fact of the matter is that, in some instances, you're perfectly fine with it...


As long as we agree that racism against whites:

1. Does not involve discrimination
2. Is not systemic
3. Is not institutional
4. Is not part of a longstanding US tradition
5. And does not receive state support.

I have never made those statements anywhere. Why do you insist on making hit uip? (sic)

Again, you're making [stuff] up. ....some more random insults from BigSteve...


If you want, I can say that I have repeatedly claimed that racism against blacks in the USA has involved state support, widespread discrimination, is a longstanding tradition, and is systemic and institutional and racism against whites is none if these things, and you have never contradicted me in that or disagreed in any way.

Do you disagree with that claim?

If so, how?

Oh, that's right... you're a liberal and that's what libs do...


Actually, I am a progressive democratic socialist.

It is you who are the liberal.

And if we define it as "anything that's done to someone because of race" then your argument fails.


Yes, but since I did not define it that way at any point in this thread, while I have consistently used the definition given above, this is an arbitrary criticism of yours,

Also, my definition takes into account history, impact, how racism is inherent to certain social institutions, and other factors.

Yours is about anything at all, which is literally as vague as you can get.

I believe ANY racism is bad. You, on the other hand, believe that only racism against blacks is bad.

That's supremely fucked up...


This is a strawman and a discussion about your opinion of your feelings.
#15020816
Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not care what you think of me.

As long as we agree that racism against whites:

1. Does not involve discrimination
2. Is not systemic
3. Is not institutional
4. Is not part of a longstanding US tradition
5. And does not receive state support.

If you want, I can say that I have repeatedly claimed that racism against blacks in the USA has involved state support, widespread discrimination, is a longstanding tradition, and is systemic and institutional and racism against whites is none if these things, and you have never contradicted me in that or disagreed in any way.

Do you disagree with that claim?

If so, how?

Actually, I am a progressive democratic socialist.

It is you who are the liberal.

Yes, but since I did not define it that way at any point in this thread, while I have consistently used the definition given above, this is an arbitrary criticism of yours,

Also, my definition takes into account history, impact, how racism is inherent to certain social institutions, and other factors.

Yours is about anything at all, which is literally as vague as you can get.

This is a strawman and a discussion about your opinion of your feelings.


You've a demonstrated proclivity to make things up when reality doesn't favor your argument. Congratulations. You've successfully worked yourself into my "pitiful and laughable" file...
#15020819
Sure.

As long as we agree that racism against whites:

1. Does not involve discrimination
2. Is not systemic
3. Is not institutional
4. Is not part of a longstanding US tradition
5. And does not receive state support.

Racism against blacks in the USA has involved state support, widespread discrimination, is a longstanding tradition, and is systemic and institutional and racism against whites is none if these things, and you have never contradicted me in that or disagreed in any way.
#15020855
Pants-of-dog wrote:Racism against blacks in the USA has involved state support, widespread discrimination, is a longstanding tradition, and is systemic and institutional and racism against whites is none if these things, and you have never contradicted me in that or disagreed in any way.

If USA state is "racist" like how you believe, then why does the U.S. government give state assistance and jobs to blacks?

Image

Non whites get more "racist" state assistance than whites in USA. If the USA state was racist like how you falsely believe, then would the state not give any welfare to non whites at all?
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
Election 2020

I'm thinking more of taking responsibility for pe[…]

How ISIS replenishes its ranks

@Palmyrene :p I'm not fully informed on the […]

Oh, OK. So, you understand something intimate abo[…]

https://youtu.be/kmmaRbSunPs