It is time for Biden to step aside - Page 36 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15104999


Biden recently gave a news conference after an about 90 day break but he apparently was reading his answers off of teleprompters, so it wasn't a real conference. Just in case anyone thought that level of performance was going to be his new normal, he messes up right out the gate on a new streaming thing...
#15105032
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Julian658

Define “sjw”.

Social Justice Warrior. Typically a millennial, an SJW lives in a predominately white neighborhood while complaining on behalf of underrepresented minorities. they advocate for complete state control, abolishment of capitalism, and equality of outcome (Communism) as well as blaming every societal ill on successful demographics which they deem evil and "privileged" (Nazism). SJWs hate males, Europeans, east Asian (men), heterosexuals, and Jews (among others). They believe that these demographics should be forced to serve less successful demographics (such as blacks, muslims, and females), who they claim are oppressed.


A picture is worth a 1000 words:
Image
Image
Image
#15105033
Unthinking Majority wrote:The 2nd amendment is stupid.

The American War of independence started over gun control. There may been many underlying issues but it was gun control that stared the War of independence. In fact it was the same with the 1861 Civil War again it was gun control that triggered the actual fighting.

It can be argued that the 2nd Amendment is a shameful disgrace, a disgrace that it wasn't in the original document prior to amendment. But then again the Amendments are a testament to the democratic egalitarian, populist spirit of the American project and Anglo American colonialsim, dating back to the Virginia founding. Democracy leads to things like Brexit and South African Apartheid, things most of the elite think are stupid.
#15105047
The American War of independence started over gun control.


No it didn't. It is a nice fiction though. I have heard it before.

I have no problem with gun control to a great extent. But Biden is actually a gun advocate. That is unless you are one of the pathetically emasculated Americans who believes he needs an semi-automatic rifle to play soldier because he did not have the balls to be a real soldier and use a real automatic rifle to kill other people.
#15105054
Drlee wrote:No it didn't. It is a nice fiction though. I have heard it before.

Yes it did. George III's government wanted to move from government of the Colonies through consent (however grudging) to rule through terror. To that end they set about disarming the free English people of the Colonies. The shooting war started over the the British government's attempts to steal the weapons, ammunition and supplies from Concord armoury. History's so often a bitch to Liberals, hence their constant attempts to censor and rewrite it.
#15105111
To that end they set about disarming the free English people of the Colonies.


Ah no. Long before that there were political grievances with the crown. The Boston Massacre and Tea Party were acts of rebellion long before.

But you bring up an interesting point. Clearly the framers were referring not to the private ownership of arms but rather the right of militias to keep arms. There was, after all, no real attempt by the British to disarm individuals. They did want to prevent powerful militias. That is why "a well ordered militia" is in the constitution. I think that if you asked Jefferson or Adams whether individuals should own canon they would have laughed in your face.

The colonies has always relied on militias formed from the citizenry to repel Indian raids. Men kept arms for the purpose and carried them most of the time. There are tons of misquotes, mostly spread by the NRA, my favorite is a stirring quote attributed to Federalist 184, and remarkable only in the fact that there were only 85 Federalist papers. But Hamilton said:

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority.


Ahem.

So we will hear tons of lies about the democrats wanting to disarm the population. Not going to happen. But the republicans are back on their heels. Theirs will be a campaign of one lie after another.
#15105721
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Julian658

You literally just clarified that when you call someone an SJW, you mean it in an insulting manner.

Getting back to the topic, do you think the US is inherently racist?

No more or less racist than you POD.
Racism means to judge an individual according to ancestry or phenotype. Have you ever done that? Do you ever make conclusions based on the appearance of another human?
#15105722
@Julian658 Racism means to judge an individual according to ancestry or phenotype.


Wrong again son:

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

Similar:
racial discrimination
racialism
racial prejudice/bigotry
xenophobia
chauvinism
bigotry
bias
intolerance
anti-Semitism
apartheid

the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

Maybe, now that you know the definition, you will not be so inclined to be obvious.
#15105723
Drlee wrote:Wrong again son:

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

Similar:
racial discrimination
racialism
racial prejudice/bigotry
xenophobia
chauvinism
bigotry
bias
intolerance
anti-Semitism
apartheid

the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

Maybe, now that you know the definition, you will not be so inclined to be obvious.


OK, this is where I disagree (see bold).

You definition of racism requires one group to feel superior and the other group to feel inferior. You are talking about an emotional response related to perceived discrimination from a group that is supposed to have superior standing.

The effect will be maximized if the discriminated person has any type of insecurity. This may trigger the amygdala and an emotional response is created. In this context the person that complains of racism implies a discrepancy in status, an acknowledgement of insecurity. This is how racism is perceived in America. The person that is supposed to have a lower status is conditioned to react with anguish. That is why we have racial PTSD in America.

I grew up in Latin America and my self esteem was formed in childhood. There is nothing anyone can say to me that is racist because I see everybody as an equal. I do not perceive differences and hence there cannot be racism among equals.

Sure, I accept that those in power can discriminate those in a less powerful position, but I simply call that discrimination and it does not imply racial group superiority or inferiority.

The key to eliminate the racism you describe is to judge EVERY PERSON AS AN INDIVIDUAL. If we were to push individuality as the cornerstone of American culture instead of group identity racism would disappeared very quickly. It is impossible to be a racist when judging others as individuals.
#15105724
You definition of racism requires one group to feel superior and the other group to feel inferior.


No. Webster's dictionary defines it as that. I agree with them.


You are talking about an emotional response related to perceived discrimination from a group that is supposed to have superior standing.


This does not even make sense.

The effect will be maximized if the discriminated person has any type of insecurity. This may trigger the amygdala and an emotional response is created. In this context the person that complains of racism implies a discrepancy in status, an acknowledgement of insecurity.


You are not a psychiatrist so I would just leave that alone if I were you.

This is how racism is perceived in America. The person that is supposed to have a lower status is conditioned to react with anguish. That is why we have racial PTSD in America.


What a load of shit. Your pseudo intellectual crap is impressing no one.

Racism in the US is not a mere perception. It is a tangible reality. This is not even open for debate. Black people (and some others) are not harmed by racism because they get anxious. They are harmed economically, physically, intellectually and psychologically. In other words, the sequela of racism is not simply a self-esteem hit akin to being chosen last for football.

I grew up in Latin America and my self esteem was formed in childhood. There is nothing anyone can say to me that is racist because I see everybody as an equal. I do not perceive differences and hence there cannot be racism among equals.


Actually this is the worst thing you could have said in your own defense. There most certainly can be racism among equals. That is the very definition of it. Your personal opinion of yourself is irrelevant. Millions of people in the US and perhaps billions around the world do not perceive others as their equals and act on that perception.

Sure, I accept that those in power can discriminate those in a less powerful position, but I simply call that discrimination and it does not imply racial group superiority or inferiority.


More nonsense. Way to deny the obvious though.
#15105739
XogGyux wrote:When people's argument can no longer hold water, they start trying to pull hairs on definitions... as if definitions is the issue...

If two groups see each other as equals there cannot be racism. If one group feels inferior and the other group feels superior then we have racism. This is not rocket science guys.
#15105740
Drlee wrote:No. Webster's dictionary defines it as that. I agree with them.


The woke dictionary definition is worthless,





You are not a psychiatrist so I would just leave that alone if I were you.


The Link Between Racism and PTSD
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... m-and-ptsd


Racism in the US is not a mere perception. It is a tangible reality. This is not even open for debate. Black people (and some others) are not harmed by racism because they get anxious. They are harmed economically, physically, intellectually and psychologically. In other words, the sequela of racism is not simply a self-esteem hit akin to being chosen last for football.

In group preference is real. Has been real forever.


Actually this is the worst thing you could have said in your own defense. There most certainly can be racism among equals. That is the very definition of it. Your personal opinion of yourself is irrelevant. Millions of people in the US and perhaps billions around the world do not perceive others as their equals and act on that perception.


If there is no perceived inferiority or superiority between groups what you have is nothing more than in group preference .
Last edited by Julian658 on 07 Jul 2020 13:01, edited 1 time in total.
#15105761
Drlee wrote:But you bring up an interesting point. Clearly the framers were referring not to the private ownership of arms but rather the right of militias to keep arms. There was, after all, no real attempt by the British to disarm individuals. They did want to prevent powerful militias. That is why "a well ordered militia" is in the constitution. I think that if you asked Jefferson or Adams whether individuals should own canon they would have laughed in your face.

Really DrLee I would have expected better of you than this nonsense.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Ok there's 3 points that I really shouldn't have to be explaining to an educated person from the Anglosphere.

1 "The people" This term has a precise meaning in the American Constitution. It very specifically means not the Federal Government and not the States. When powers are assigned or recognised as belonging to the people that very precisely and specifically excludes them both from the domain of the Federal Government and from the domain of the local State government. Incorporation radically (and completely unconstitutionally) changed the American Constitution. But the 2nd Amendment never needed Incorporation. Weapon control not just gun control is completely banned by the Federal Government and the States.

2 "infringed", the absolute nature of this command is confirmed by the word "infringed", nothing about "within reason", nothing about taking into account other considerations, nothing about registration, back ground checks or gun calibres.

3 "for their Defense suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law", this is qualified in the Bill Of Rights. The fact that these clauses, or some version or derivative of, did not find their way in to the 2nd amendment speaks volumes. The founders would all have been 100% aware of these caveats and very specifically chose not to include them.
#15105763
XogGyux wrote:Does this forum have an ignore feature? We are in desperate need of one.



DO you prefer the American tradition of free speech or the European tradition of some censorship?

Do you agree that by exchanging ideas there can be a consensus or a better understanding of the issue?
Running away is not the answer.
  • 1
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37

Based on my previous post, we can say that the *p[…]

Raising the minimum wage to 15$ an hour and forci[…]

Blast in Beirut, Lebanon

EDIT: The FPM is Hezbollah's main ally in the c[…]

Russia has the National Research Center for Epidem[…]