Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav i refuse to pay my taxes imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
Glad to know that you have 1 millions on your bank account, others don't have that priviledge.
You don't really get the principle of redistribution, do ya ?
wuat ?
Yes it is. If you call a black person the N-word its racist indeed.
Oh, the return of mister dictionnaries. Always fighting the cause of those who are oppressed... wait, its the opposite.
Is this meme supposed to support my argument or disprove it ? I can't tell
You don't really get the principle of redistribution, do ya ?
wuat ?
Yes it is. If you call a black person the N-word its racist indeed.
Oh, the return of mister dictionnaries. Always fighting the cause of those who are oppressed... wait, its the opposite.
Is this meme supposed to support my argument or disprove it ? I can't tell
They dont need to have the same historical context to be racial slurs. So at best you can tell him there are worse forms of racism one can experience. Pretty ironic considering you cry alot about the delegitimizing of peoples experiences and identities.
Only when convenient apparently. Seeing a pattern there
Only when convenient apparently. Seeing a pattern there
There is a difference in term of importance and seriousness between what we call individual racism and systemic racism.
One is the result of reactance against oppression, the others is the symptom of said oppression.
Comparing individual racism and systemic racism is like comparing the racism of Arlong against human and the racism fishmen faces from human.
Nothing more to say. You don't care about reality, you only care about the academic definitions of the words. Which is a conservative stance and I really don't like conservatism.
One is the result of reactance against oppression, the others is the symptom of said oppression.
Comparing individual racism and systemic racism is like comparing the racism of Arlong against human and the racism fishmen faces from human.
Nothing more to say. You don't care about reality, you only care about the academic definitions of the words. Which is a conservative stance and I really don't like conservatism.
sure, that doesnt mean people who dont suffer from systemic racism cant experience individual racism. if you mean systemic racism, say systemic racism. because he obviously replied with his experience of individual racism (i.e. racism)
arlong pretty much became what he hated, controlling entire villages with terror and death lmao. this isnt a good analogy at all.
pretty much everything you said here is untrue. dictionaries dont necessarily give us academic definitions. i dont "only care" about the definitions, im just using words as they are defined, because that is the common ground we as a species have to actually communicate with each other. actual academic definitions do matter sometimes, like when some ignorant nutjob says stupid shit like "evolution is just a theory".
i said it before, im gonna repeat it again: if everyone just uses words contrary to their definitions like you are doing occasionally, then the entire concept of language is basically redundant. and sure, definitions change and evolve, but that has to be natural instead of forcing whatever you want words to mean on to other people.
Post automatically merged:
arlong pretty much became what he hated, controlling entire villages with terror and death lmao. this isnt a good analogy at all.
Post automatically merged:
pretty much everything you said here is untrue. dictionaries dont necessarily give us academic definitions. i dont "only care" about the definitions, im just using words as they are defined, because that is the common ground we as a species have to actually communicate with each other. actual academic definitions do matter sometimes, like when some ignorant nutjob says stupid shit like "evolution is just a theory".
i said it before, im gonna repeat it again: if everyone just uses words contrary to their definitions like you are doing occasionally, then the entire concept of language is basically redundant. and sure, definitions change and evolve, but that has to be natural instead of forcing whatever you want words to mean on to other people.
Last edited:
Oh but we should always be proud of triggering the sh*t out of far right and conservatists or confusionnists like you. It should be a national sport.
Those interpersonal racist attacks must not be treated with the same gravity of those produced by systemic racism.
Racism is a system of domination that was created to legitimize this existence of people of colors. Those cases of interpersonal racism are the response to this systemic racism and oppressions. Racism as it is lived by million of people of color is systemic, Hence why people like Bob NEVER experienced the reality this racism in the first place but cases of individual/interpersonal racism.
No. In no way.
You are comparing the attack of an individual with the attack of an entire system delibaratly perpetuated by millions of people.
What Arlong - however cruel he was - did, is IN NO WAY comparable to what human did to fishmen (but overall all the non human races in the One Piece world)
This is the difference between the act of a system and the act of an individual. One must be taken with much more gravity, simply because its much more difficult to erease than the other.
This was the perfect analogy. Arlong racism is a case of individual racism. Arlong acts in response to the oppression fishmen faces in the world. This is EXACTLY what is happening when a black person is being racist against a white person in our world. Its reactance and individual, its not systemic.
Yes they do. "Academics" being the institution that creates those dictionnaries and their competition.
Yes my point exactly. Even when said definitions are not describing reality correctly.
The common ground is not based on dictionnaries but usages and common definitions. When said definitions evolve, its no use to keep defending old and inaccurate definitions.
Languages evolve mate. And dictionnaries are the last places where you will notice those evolutions. Simply because they are not constructed in order to be a testimony of the evolution of language but to be a fixed referenced point about language.
Nobody is forcing anything on anyone here. If you want to defend old transphobic or non scientific definitions, you go for it.
Those interpersonal racist attacks must not be treated with the same gravity of those produced by systemic racism.
Racism is a system of domination that was created to legitimize this existence of people of colors. Those cases of interpersonal racism are the response to this systemic racism and oppressions. Racism as it is lived by million of people of color is systemic, Hence why people like Bob NEVER experienced the reality this racism in the first place but cases of individual/interpersonal racism.
No. In no way.
You are comparing the attack of an individual with the attack of an entire system delibaratly perpetuated by millions of people.
What Arlong - however cruel he was - did, is IN NO WAY comparable to what human did to fishmen (but overall all the non human races in the One Piece world)
This is the difference between the act of a system and the act of an individual. One must be taken with much more gravity, simply because its much more difficult to erease than the other.
This was the perfect analogy. Arlong racism is a case of individual racism. Arlong acts in response to the oppression fishmen faces in the world. This is EXACTLY what is happening when a black person is being racist against a white person in our world. Its reactance and individual, its not systemic.
Yes they do. "Academics" being the institution that creates those dictionnaries and their competition.
Yes my point exactly. Even when said definitions are not describing reality correctly.
The common ground is not based on dictionnaries but usages and common definitions. When said definitions evolve, its no use to keep defending old and inaccurate definitions.
Languages evolve mate. And dictionnaries are the last places where you will notice those evolutions. Simply because they are not constructed in order to be a testimony of the evolution of language but to be a fixed referenced point about language.
Nobody is forcing anything on anyone here. If you want to defend old transphobic or non scientific definitions, you go for it.
no they dont. dictionaries give us definitions of words used in colloquial context just as scientific context.
talking out of your ass much
so dictionaries, that give us usages and common definitions, which is why dictionaries change and evolve?!?!
man seriously you are spouting some mad stupid shit
they are describing how words are used. sometimes with confliction definitions depending on context, which is perfectly fine. for example gender, where you have a definition based on gender roles (and therefore sex), a definition based on grammar, a definition based on gender identity, all of which are valid
yes, i literally said that in my post, you conveniently didnt read that part i guess:
not really? i mean we have dictionary definitions on gender identity but still plenty people who reject this concept entirely.
it always depends, even if you want everything to be black and white all the time
well they are, i mentioned it before, but in my native language (german), we literally adopted the word "gender" as it is into our dictionary because we didnt have a fitting word for the concept of gender identity lmao.
stop talking out of your ass so much
what is it with you and inferring that people "defend" shit? im not defending anything. im just using words correctly and you are not.
and i guess you are implying the definition of "woman" or "female" again here. female is also a biological concept, so the definition based on biological sex IS JUST AS scientific lmfao.
and the definition based on gender identity is retarded as fuck
"variable set", so this isnt even defining the word at all, especially when you consider that this set of social and cultural roles, traits and behaviors differ depending on your location. i wonder if western transwomen would want to identify as women in iran. i highly doubt that.
makes perfect sense people rather use the definition rooted in biology
i guess stop reporting people for using valid definitions then?
makes one think whether he actually believes half the nonsense he spouts or whether he just wants to trigger far rightists.
he is the noodle of the politics thread lmao
talking out of your ass much
Post automatically merged:
so dictionaries, that give us usages and common definitions, which is why dictionaries change and evolve?!?!
man seriously you are spouting some mad stupid shit
Post automatically merged:
they are describing how words are used. sometimes with confliction definitions depending on context, which is perfectly fine. for example gender, where you have a definition based on gender roles (and therefore sex), a definition based on grammar, a definition based on gender identity, all of which are valid
Post automatically merged:
yes, i literally said that in my post, you conveniently didnt read that part i guess:
Post automatically merged:
not really? i mean we have dictionary definitions on gender identity but still plenty people who reject this concept entirely.
it always depends, even if you want everything to be black and white all the time
Post automatically merged:
well they are, i mentioned it before, but in my native language (german), we literally adopted the word "gender" as it is into our dictionary because we didnt have a fitting word for the concept of gender identity lmao.
stop talking out of your ass so much
Post automatically merged:
what is it with you and inferring that people "defend" shit? im not defending anything. im just using words correctly and you are not.
and i guess you are implying the definition of "woman" or "female" again here. female is also a biological concept, so the definition based on biological sex IS JUST AS scientific lmfao.
and the definition based on gender identity is retarded as fuck
"variable set", so this isnt even defining the word at all, especially when you consider that this set of social and cultural roles, traits and behaviors differ depending on your location. i wonder if western transwomen would want to identify as women in iran. i highly doubt that.
makes perfect sense people rather use the definition rooted in biology
Post automatically merged:
i guess stop reporting people for using valid definitions then?
Post automatically merged:
makes one think whether he actually believes half the nonsense he spouts or whether he just wants to trigger far rightists.
he is the noodle of the politics thread lmao
Last edited:
kinda hard to even obtain housing when the cost of living is getting higher and higher
it's like 200k for a house, most people dont have that kinda money
including myself.
does anybody even get arrested for being black like any single example of that occuring
racism can just be people being rude to you yea if you say mean things about x person cause they are this certain race then yea that's racist, or is it ok to walk into a african country throwing slurs around
and yea captialism creates alot of problems most people hopefully can admit that
poverty low income households and so on
my head been hurting all fucking day so im leaving it here for now
Post automatically merged:
finally we get carrot going mask off
your saying the stuff you do as to trigger people not cause you care about logic or to have good faith discussions
or perhaps your just having internet rage cause somebody pissed you off
likely both would be true
here's the thing too, right here you admit what your saying is idealogical in nature not factual
Last edited:
When people like Bob is comparing him being insulted with racial slur because he is white and the systemic racism that face people then yes, those are cases were some are trying to treat those things equally (in fact you are doing the same thing with the case of Arlong, even if its a fiction).
There is no and never was system of racial domination and racial hierchization against white people so when someone uses racial slur against white people, its always in reactance.
Its racist, but its a reactance response to an already pre existing system of domination.
Yes, we just need to be careful to contectualize correctly the words. And not use one for the other.
Theorically it would have been only possible by completely eradicating the population and their vision of the fishmen and remove all the pre existing structure of power (Marines / Gov / Celestial dragons / Gorosai / Imu) and replace it by a fishman centric system. Yes.
Triggering far right people is not being toxic. Its doing a favor to the common good.
Where do you see regressionism (if that is even a legitimate term) in my argumentation ?
Not really no. Some times (but maybe your dictionnary compagnies are much more progressists) dictionnaries are late/inexact in comparison of the common usage and scientific definition. Notably in progressist domain of the language where academician (who right dictionnaries, at least in my country) are literally refusing to accept those usage.
Dictionnaries are really not the best source of information if you want a good definition. Wikipedia is much more efficient in this discipline.
Your sentence doesn't make sence, don't give me lessons on language.
No, not really.
If you want to describe really how words are used, there is not enough space on one dictionnary. Language usage is really much more complexe that that.
Nop. Not even in usage. But I already have debated enoughon this topic and you won't listen so this is useless to go farther.
Just a reminder ;)
And yet, a lot of definition about gender are completely behind in term of usage when it comes to gender identities.
Not all the times, only when it counts and when its logical to think that way.
The injonction of nuance is completely fallacious in certain context and this is the case here. Dictionnaries are by essence doomed to be always late and non exact when it comes to either the reality of usage of languages or the real meanings of words. Simply because language evolves everyday.
Gender is but one example.
"Geschlechtsidentitäten" and "Geschlecht" (meaning respectively "Gender identity" and "gender"). Yes, you do have a word to talk about gender identity, what are you even sayin ?
This is called "defending a specific definition" of certain word. This is "defendind"
The way you use words might not be "the correct way", its just the way you saw it defined in dictionnaries.
Yup, I agree.
There is no definition based on gender identity. Gender is defined scientifically as something specific. If you prefer to use the dictionnary definition that describe a transphobic usage, go for it. Its not my way.
Yes they would. Your question is completely ignorant and slightly transphobic.
You are confusing "would" and "could".
Reporting is not "forcing something on someone".
And you inability to understand what I'm saying makes you a step under the feet of far rightist here :)
Be glad. You are helping them
Access to housing doesn't mean necessaraly bying a house or a flat. Its having an access to a place where you have a roof and 4 wall to keeps you warm.
Not directly because of it, but as a racial bias yes.
Really ? is that what I'm really saying or are you just deforming what I said ?
I said that we should be proud to trigger far right bigots.
Never said that it should be on non logical basis or good faith conversation. Most of my arguments here are not meants to trigger people, but to make them change.. It might work, it might not work, I don't really care. But that's my goal.
Now, if I trigger them in the process, I won't feel ashamed of that. You guys are sometimes bigots, incel, far right identitarists and sometimes even genocide denier. I'm PROUD to "trigger" you with logic and scientifical facts.
Something you might have to learn in the future is that because something is ideological doesn't mean that it can't be based on factual.
My process is purely ideological. There is no reason for me to debate people who deny science otherwise. My vision is that anyone, even far rightist like you can change and understand reality, so I won't give up.
There is no and never was system of racial domination and racial hierchization against white people so when someone uses racial slur against white people, its always in reactance.
Its racist, but its a reactance response to an already pre existing system of domination.
Yes, we just need to be careful to contectualize correctly the words. And not use one for the other.
Theorically it would have been only possible by completely eradicating the population and their vision of the fishmen and remove all the pre existing structure of power (Marines / Gov / Celestial dragons / Gorosai / Imu) and replace it by a fishman centric system. Yes.
Triggering far right people is not being toxic. Its doing a favor to the common good.
Where do you see regressionism (if that is even a legitimate term) in my argumentation ?
Not really no. Some times (but maybe your dictionnary compagnies are much more progressists) dictionnaries are late/inexact in comparison of the common usage and scientific definition. Notably in progressist domain of the language where academician (who right dictionnaries, at least in my country) are literally refusing to accept those usage.
Dictionnaries are really not the best source of information if you want a good definition. Wikipedia is much more efficient in this discipline.
Your sentence doesn't make sence, don't give me lessons on language.
No, not really.
If you want to describe really how words are used, there is not enough space on one dictionnary. Language usage is really much more complexe that that.
Nop. Not even in usage. But I already have debated enoughon this topic and you won't listen so this is useless to go farther.
Just a reminder ;)
And yet, a lot of definition about gender are completely behind in term of usage when it comes to gender identities.
Not all the times, only when it counts and when its logical to think that way.
The injonction of nuance is completely fallacious in certain context and this is the case here. Dictionnaries are by essence doomed to be always late and non exact when it comes to either the reality of usage of languages or the real meanings of words. Simply because language evolves everyday.
Gender is but one example.
"Geschlechtsidentitäten" and "Geschlecht" (meaning respectively "Gender identity" and "gender"). Yes, you do have a word to talk about gender identity, what are you even sayin ?
This is called "defending a specific definition" of certain word. This is "defendind"
The way you use words might not be "the correct way", its just the way you saw it defined in dictionnaries.
Yup, I agree.
There is no definition based on gender identity. Gender is defined scientifically as something specific. If you prefer to use the dictionnary definition that describe a transphobic usage, go for it. Its not my way.
Yes they would. Your question is completely ignorant and slightly transphobic.
You are confusing "would" and "could".
Reporting is not "forcing something on someone".
And you inability to understand what I'm saying makes you a step under the feet of far rightist here :)
Be glad. You are helping them
Access to housing doesn't mean necessaraly bying a house or a flat. Its having an access to a place where you have a roof and 4 wall to keeps you warm.
Not directly because of it, but as a racial bias yes.
Really ? is that what I'm really saying or are you just deforming what I said ?
I said that we should be proud to trigger far right bigots.
Never said that it should be on non logical basis or good faith conversation. Most of my arguments here are not meants to trigger people, but to make them change.. It might work, it might not work, I don't really care. But that's my goal.
Now, if I trigger them in the process, I won't feel ashamed of that. You guys are sometimes bigots, incel, far right identitarists and sometimes even genocide denier. I'm PROUD to "trigger" you with logic and scientifical facts.
Something you might have to learn in the future is that because something is ideological doesn't mean that it can't be based on factual.
My process is purely ideological. There is no reason for me to debate people who deny science otherwise. My vision is that anyone, even far rightist like you can change and understand reality, so I won't give up.
When people like Bob is comparing him being insulted with racial slur because he is white and the systemic racism that face people then yes, those are cases were some are trying to treat those things equally (in fact you are doing the same thing with the case of Arlong, even if its a fiction).
There is no and never was system of racial domination and racial hierchization against white people so when someone uses racial slur against white people, its always in reactance.
Its racist, but its a reactance response to an already pre existing system of domination.
Yes, we just need to be careful to contectualize correctly the words. And not use one for the other.
Theorically it would have been only possible by completely eradicating the population and their vision of the fishmen and remove all the pre existing structure of power (Marines / Gov / Celestial dragons / Gorosai / Imu) and replace it by a fishman centric system. Yes.
Triggering far right people is not being toxic. Its doing a favor to the common good.
Where do you see regressionism (if that is even a legitimate term) in my argumentation ?
Not really no. Some times (but maybe your dictionnary compagnies are much more progressists) dictionnaries are late/inexact in comparison of the common usage and scientific definition. Notably in progressist domain of the language where academician (who right dictionnaries, at least in my country) are literally refusing to accept those usage.
Dictionnaries are really not the best source of information if you want a good definition. Wikipedia is much more efficient in this discipline.
Your sentence doesn't make sence, don't give me lessons on language.
No, not really.
If you want to describe really how words are used, there is not enough space on one dictionnary. Language usage is really much more complexe that that.
Nop. Not even in usage. But I already have debated enoughon this topic and you won't listen so this is useless to go farther.
Just a reminder ;)
And yet, a lot of definition about gender are completely behind in term of usage when it comes to gender identities.
Not all the times, only when it counts and when its logical to think that way.
The injonction of nuance is completely fallacious in certain context and this is the case here. Dictionnaries are by essence doomed to be always late and non exact when it comes to either the reality of usage of languages or the real meanings of words. Simply because language evolves everyday.
Gender is but one example.
"Geschlechtsidentitäten" and "Geschlecht" (meaning respectively "Gender identity" and "gender"). Yes, you do have a word to talk about gender identity, what are you even sayin ?
This is called "defending a specific definition" of certain word. This is "defendind"
The way you use words might not be "the correct way", its just the way you saw it defined in dictionnaries.
Yup, I agree.
There is no definition based on gender identity. Gender is defined scientifically as something specific. If you prefer to use the dictionnary definition that describe a transphobic usage, go for it. Its not my way.
Yes they would. Your question is completely ignorant and slightly transphobic.
You are confusing "would" and "could".
Reporting is not "forcing something on someone".
And you inability to understand what I'm saying makes you a step under the feet of far rightist here :)
Be glad. You are helping them
Access to housing doesn't mean necessaraly bying a house or a flat. Its having an access to a place where you have a roof and 4 wall to keeps you warm.
Not directly because of it, but as a racial bias yes.
Really ? is that what I'm really saying or are you just deforming what I said ?
I said that we should be proud to trigger far right bigots.
Never said that it should be on non logical basis or good faith conversation. Most of my arguments here are not meants to trigger people, but to make them change.. It might work, it might not work, I don't really care. But that's my goal.
Now, if I trigger them in the process, I won't feel ashamed of that. You guys are sometimes bigots, incel, far right identitarists and sometimes even genocide denier. I'm PROUD to "trigger" you with logic and scientifical facts.
Something you might have to learn in the future is that because something is ideological doesn't mean that it can't be based on factual.
My process is purely ideological. There is no reason for me to debate people who deny science otherwise. My vision is that anyone, even far rightist like you can change and understand reality, so I won't give up.
There is no and never was system of racial domination and racial hierchization against white people so when someone uses racial slur against white people, its always in reactance.
Its racist, but its a reactance response to an already pre existing system of domination.
Yes, we just need to be careful to contectualize correctly the words. And not use one for the other.
Theorically it would have been only possible by completely eradicating the population and their vision of the fishmen and remove all the pre existing structure of power (Marines / Gov / Celestial dragons / Gorosai / Imu) and replace it by a fishman centric system. Yes.
Triggering far right people is not being toxic. Its doing a favor to the common good.
Where do you see regressionism (if that is even a legitimate term) in my argumentation ?
Not really no. Some times (but maybe your dictionnary compagnies are much more progressists) dictionnaries are late/inexact in comparison of the common usage and scientific definition. Notably in progressist domain of the language where academician (who right dictionnaries, at least in my country) are literally refusing to accept those usage.
Dictionnaries are really not the best source of information if you want a good definition. Wikipedia is much more efficient in this discipline.
Your sentence doesn't make sence, don't give me lessons on language.
No, not really.
If you want to describe really how words are used, there is not enough space on one dictionnary. Language usage is really much more complexe that that.
Nop. Not even in usage. But I already have debated enoughon this topic and you won't listen so this is useless to go farther.
Just a reminder ;)
And yet, a lot of definition about gender are completely behind in term of usage when it comes to gender identities.
Not all the times, only when it counts and when its logical to think that way.
The injonction of nuance is completely fallacious in certain context and this is the case here. Dictionnaries are by essence doomed to be always late and non exact when it comes to either the reality of usage of languages or the real meanings of words. Simply because language evolves everyday.
Gender is but one example.
"Geschlechtsidentitäten" and "Geschlecht" (meaning respectively "Gender identity" and "gender"). Yes, you do have a word to talk about gender identity, what are you even sayin ?
This is called "defending a specific definition" of certain word. This is "defendind"
The way you use words might not be "the correct way", its just the way you saw it defined in dictionnaries.
Yup, I agree.
There is no definition based on gender identity. Gender is defined scientifically as something specific. If you prefer to use the dictionnary definition that describe a transphobic usage, go for it. Its not my way.
Yes they would. Your question is completely ignorant and slightly transphobic.
You are confusing "would" and "could".
Reporting is not "forcing something on someone".
And you inability to understand what I'm saying makes you a step under the feet of far rightist here :)
Be glad. You are helping them
Access to housing doesn't mean necessaraly bying a house or a flat. Its having an access to a place where you have a roof and 4 wall to keeps you warm.
Not directly because of it, but as a racial bias yes.
Really ? is that what I'm really saying or are you just deforming what I said ?
I said that we should be proud to trigger far right bigots.
Never said that it should be on non logical basis or good faith conversation. Most of my arguments here are not meants to trigger people, but to make them change.. It might work, it might not work, I don't really care. But that's my goal.
Now, if I trigger them in the process, I won't feel ashamed of that. You guys are sometimes bigots, incel, far right identitarists and sometimes even genocide denier. I'm PROUD to "trigger" you with logic and scientifical facts.
Something you might have to learn in the future is that because something is ideological doesn't mean that it can't be based on factual.
My process is purely ideological. There is no reason for me to debate people who deny science otherwise. My vision is that anyone, even far rightist like you can change and understand reality, so I won't give up.