Controversial General Political Discussion

[Logiko]

That's not something to be proud of

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.

who dont suffer from systemic racism cant experience individual racism.

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.

arlong pretty much became what he hated

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 isnt a good analogy at all.

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.

dictionaries dont necessarily give us academic definitions.

Yes they do. "Academics" being the institution that creates those dictionnaries and their competition.

im just using words as they are defined

Yes my point exactly. Even when said definitions are not describing reality correctly.

because that is the common ground we as a species have to actually communicate with each other

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.

if everyone just uses words contrary to their definitions like you are doing occasionally, then the entire concept of language is basically redundant

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.

but that has to be natural instead of forcing whatever you want words to mean on to other people.

Nobody is forcing anything on anyone here. If you want to defend old transphobic or non scientific definitions, you go for it.

 

[Zenos7]

Those interpersonal racist attacks must not be treated with the same gravity of those produced by systemic racism.

i dont think anyone is saying that they should be treated with the same gravity?!

Those cases of interpersonal racism are the response to this systemic racism and oppressions

not necessarily, no

Hence why people like Bob NEVER experienced the reality this racism in the first place but cases of individual/interpersonal racism.

which is: racism.

No. In no way.

yeah if arlong had a little more time instead of getting clobbered by luffy, he would have created the system in reverse lmao.

 

[Ravagerblade]

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.

And there it is, Admitted he's a toxic son of a bitch.
Conservatism > Your Regressionism.

 

[Zenos7]

Yes they do. "Academics" being the institution that creates those dictionnaries and their competition.

no they dont. dictionaries give us definitions of words used in colloquial context just as scientific context.

talking out of your ass much

Post automatically merged: Jan 23, 2024

The common ground is not based on dictionnaries but usages and common definitions.

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: Jan 23, 2024

Even when said definitions are not describing reality correctly.

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: Jan 23, 2024

Languages evolve mate

yes, i literally said that in my post, you conveniently didnt read that part i guess:

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: Jan 23, 2024

And dictionnaries are the last places where you will notice those evolutions.

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: Jan 23, 2024

Simply because they are not constructed in order to be a testimony of the evolution of language

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: Jan 23, 2024

Nobody is forcing anything on anyone here. If you want to defend old transphobic or non scientific definitions, you go for it.

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

having or relating to a gender identity that corresponds to a complex, variable set of social and cultural roles, traits, and behaviors assigned to people of the sex that typically produces egg cells.

"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: Jan 23, 2024

Nobody is forcing anything on anyone here

i guess stop reporting people for using valid definitions then?

Post automatically merged: Jan 23, 2024

And there it is, Admitted he's a toxic son of a bitch.
Conservatism > Your Regressionism.

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

 

[Bob74h]

That's what I thought. So you never really experienced racism. You were never refused job or housing because of your skin color. You were never arrested or beaten because of your skin color.

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: Jan 23, 2024

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.

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

 

[Logiko]

i dont think anyone is saying that they should be treated with the same gravity?!

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).

not necessarily, no

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.

which is: racism.

Yes, we just need to be careful to contectualize correctly the words. And not use one for the other.

yeah if arlong had a little more time instead of getting clobbered by luffy, he would have created the system in reverse lmao.

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.

And there it is, Admitted he's a toxic son of a bitch.

Triggering far right people is not being toxic. Its doing a favor to the common good.

Your Regressionism.

Where do you see regressionism (if that is even a legitimate term) in my argumentation ?

no they dont. dictionaries give us definitions of words used in colloquial context just as scientific context.

talking out of your ass much

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.

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

Your sentence doesn't make sence, don't give me lessons on language.

they are describing how words are used.

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.

all of which are valid

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.

yes, i literally said that in my post, you conveniently didnt read that part i guess:

Just a reminder ;)

not really? i mean we have dictionary definitions on gender identity but still plenty people who reject this concept entirely.

And yet, a lot of definition about gender are completely behind in term of usage when it comes to gender identities.

it always depends, even if you want everything to be black and white all the time

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.

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.

"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 ?

im just using words correctly

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.

female is also a biological concept, so the definition based on biological sex IS JUST AS scientific lmfao.

Yup, I agree.

and the definition based on gender identity is retarded as fuck

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.

i wonder if western transwomen would want to identify as women in iran

Yes they would. Your question is completely ignorant and slightly transphobic.

You are confusing "would" and "could".

i guess stop reporting people for using valid definitions then?

Reporting is not "forcing something on someone".

he is the noodle of the politics thread lmao

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

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.

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.

does anybody even get arrested for being black like any single example of that occuring

Not directly because of it, but as a racial bias yes.

your saying the stuff you do as to trigger people not cause you care about logic or to have good faith discussions

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.

here's the thing too, right here you admit what your saying is idealogical in nature not factual

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.

 

[Ravagerblade]

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.

Right back at you then, Making sure you're ideas and you know everything you spout is retarded and is terrible for the world.

 

[Logiko]

everything you spout is retarded and is terrible for the world.

Ho, and why is that ?

 

[NAMELESS]

See me kill this thread with a single sentence: Everyone that replies to C4N/Logiko is a faggot(starting from now).

 

[Ravagerblade]

See me kill this thread with a single sentence: Everyone that replies to C4N/Logiko is a faggot(starting from now).

I'm a bundle of sticks?!?! No way...

 

[Bob74h]

And there it is, Admitted he's a toxic son of a bitch.
Conservatism > Your Regressionism.

think the truth tends to lean more in the middle then just plainly whatever x or y idealogy sees as true


be it leftism,conservtism or whatever


rarely anything functions as good or bad, there's always shades of grey with things kinda feel like at least on topics conservatives tend to listen better towards arguments where leftists value the belief of their cause higher


which is quite funny cause just 20 years ago during ragan's era, it was the conservatives who were more hardcore zealots and the liberals who were more open minded ig it's as the sang goes absolute power corrupts absolutely

 

[Logiko]

rarely anything functions as good or bad

Its not about good or bad, its about value that work and follow reality VS values that don't work and hurt people.

Capitalism > Doesn't work
Then we must give a chance to another system

Conservatism > Hurt people
Then we must prevent hurtfull conservatism

Meritocracy > Doesn't work
Then we must find another system

there's always shades of grey

This is the injonction to nuance. In some cases, its completely fallacious.

Let me take you back to WWII and the extermination camps : Do you think there is a grey area where those camps are not just plainly monstruous ?

Sometimes, nuance is not needed. Things are just bad and we must denounce them as bad:
Racism = Bad
LGBTQ+phobia = Bad
Sexism = Bad

Do you have nuances to add here ?

 

[Bob74h]

and the systemic racism that face people

no such thing


most that can be argued factually would be that black people can be poor or have high rates of such but same is true for white people


most of the society would treat racism as a negative thing, condemn people who insult others on race and or make policy


besides any remaining any legal opression of black people have far since been over


slavery

segregation and so on

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

Let me take you back to WWII and the extermination camps : Do you think there is a grey area where those camps are not just plainly monstruous ?

think your taking a extreme example here




and besides if you want grey morality



america bombed japan twice and killed so many innocents



the grey morality in ww2 was moreso that everyone did bad things not so much that act had some grey area

Sometimes, nuance is not needed. Things are just bad and we must denounce them as bad:
Racism = Bad
LGBTQ+phobia = Bad
Sexism = Bad

it's a general ideal that racism,sexism and anti lbgtq are bad


think that's a fair sentiment


however ig the problem is taking the extreme where's the middle ground for murder



and then acting it applies to all issues

 

[Zenos7]

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

I dont think that is where he was going at, but maybe

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

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.

Some people are just racist though.

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

Yes, we just need to be careful to contectualize correctly the words. And not use one for the other.

Sure

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

Wikipedia is much more efficient in this discipline.

Yeah no lmao.

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

Your sentence doesn't make sence, don't give me lessons on language.

sense*

My sentence is still fairly easy to understand though

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

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.

So you never scrolled down when i share dictionaries? Figures.

But even without reading the detailed explanation definitions are usually clear cut

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

Nop. Not even in usage

Well obviously in usage, depending on context. And gender identity being in the dictionary is also a point against the nonsense you are spouting since this isnt even common usage yet. More people than not still reject this concept and ive seen conservatives bash dictionaries because they adapted this concept, just like back when the mrna vaccines were distributed and dictionaries changed the definition for vaccine.

Sometimes the evolution happens fast.

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

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 ?

Geschlecht is biological or grammatical. Which is why we literally adopted gender into our dictionary lmao. An english word

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

This is called "defending a specific definition" of certain word. This is "defendind"

Not at all. I dont necessarily like the definitions. Im just using words correctly as they are defined.

Which is why i shifted when actually reading the definition for gender a couple days ago, despite me favoring the definition about gender identity

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

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

Disagreeing =/= not understanding

*your inability

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

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.

The backtracking begins

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

See me kill this thread with a single sentence: Everyone that replies to C4N/Logiko is a faggot(starting from now).

Bye nameless

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

Racism = Bad
LGBTQ+phobia = Bad
Sexism = Bad

Do you have nuances to add here ?

You literally yourself cried in several posts about nuance in racism and that some forms of racism are worse than other forms lmfao

 

[Logiko]

no such thing

Sure, keep denying researched and documented subjects.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8688641/

think your taking a extreme example here

So your statement "there's always shades of grey" is not extreme, but mine suddenly is ? What are you even smoking dude t create so much fallacious reasonnings ?

america bombed japan twice and killed so many innocents



the grey morality in ww2 was moreso that everyone did bad things not so much that act had some grey area

This is not a grey reasonning.
Nazism was monstruous
Bombing Hiroshima and Nagazaki was also monstruous

We are not talking about the nuances of the acts of a nation here Einstein. Everybody know that all people in one nation doesn't think the same. We are talking about the denounciations of specific acts of violence and therefore specific values that are behind those acts of violence and the fact that when you denounce something, sometimes there is NO nuances to search for.

Therefore, demanding that I should be "nuanced" when I talk about rightists values when we NOW and it is DOCUMENTED that the MAJORITY of those values are harmfull, is being completely irrationnal and close to the reasonning of a teenager that just discovered that there are multiple sides in the political spectrum and that we should therefore listen to everyone to make sure that we can make good compromises.

There is no compromises to make with toxic values.

where's the middle ground for murder

There is no middle ground. Murder is bad, even if its done for a good reason.

I dont think that is where he was going at, but maybe

Oh trust me, he was.
The same way that he is trying to equate the sufferings of men with the current systemic oppression of women under patriarchy.

Some people are just racist though.

No. We are not born racist, we become racist. And in the case of those people, this racism is created in reaction to the system of oppression they face.

It doesn't excuse their behaviors, but it means that we shouldn't put the same attention in those behaviors that we need to put in the bahvior that promote systemic racism.

We always need to fight systems of oppression first rather than those who act in vengeance because of said system of oppression unless its basolutely needed. But that's not something easy to understand I agree. In fact we are not helped by the culture as this is something that most heroes movies have a hard time understanding (because this is a liberal leaning genre first) and why you will often see super heroes fights those who act because of vengeance or radical ideas and you will almost never them fight the actual system of oppression.

We have a name for that in French. We call that "the Magneto syndrom"

(French but subtitled and you can translate them in english)

Or in English with another video:

Yeah no lmao.

Hm.. yes it. Its amazingly far more efficient and precise to understand the meaning of a word.

My sentence is still fairly easy to understand though

Repeat it please.

But even without reading the detailed explanation definitions are usually clear cut

Because they have to be. Its one of the weaknesses of dictionnaries and one of the reasons why they are not a reliable source of knowledge.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

This is actually true @Logiko

Geschlecht is biological or grammatical. Which is why we literally adopted gender into our dictionary lmao. An english word

 

[NAMELESS]

You guys are no fun.

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

@Logiko

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

@Logiko

 

[Bob74h]

This is not a grey reasonning.
Nazism was monstruous
Bombing Hiroshima and Nagazaki was also monstruous

it's nuanced cause you are not solely saying german bad

or america bad, you are looking at the context of various things and saying yea all these counties were doing bad things


another example being soviet nations's gulags



a non nuanced take would be only germany was evil and all other countries were morally right




which is untrue, britan bombed dresden as a another example




carrot what's your thoughts on urakrine getting bombed by russia recently?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia...ssile-attack-kyiv-kharkiv-lavrov-un-cbs-news/

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

We have a name for that in French. We call that "the Magneto syndrom"

x men


they named something after x men?

 

[Logiko]

Geschlecht is biological or grammatical. Which is why we literally adopted gender into our dictionary lmao. An english word

I see, you are right indeed.

Im just using words correctly as they are defined.

When you say "correctly" you put a value on the good usage of words as their are defined in a dictionnaries that is - let's not forget - only something that is meant to records words from usage, its not the divine words. People actually CAN disagree by usage with the usage described in dictionnaries

Which is why i shifted when actually reading the definition for gender a couple days ago, despite me favoring the definition about gender identity

And like I told you, dictionnaries favor the usage and sometimes (in this case) a enbyphobic usage. Which is why defending this definition like you did is queerphobe.

Again, defending the "correct usage" is a moral value, its not based on fact.

Disagreeing =/= not understanding

No. Here you are not just disagreeing. You are also not understanding the point.

The backtracking begins

Intent =/= Result

You literally yourself cried in several posts about nuance in racism and that some forms of racism are worse than other forms lmfao

When I'm talking about racism, I'm ALWAYS talking about systemic racism.
Racism = Bad. There is no nuances to have here.

@Logiko

Never read Karl Marx. The only time I met his work was in Assassin's creed Syndicate where our mission is to kill a rich guy and liberate workers from bad labor conditions. Sorry.

it's nuanced cause you are not solely saying german bad

or america bad, you are looking at the context of various things and saying yea all these counties were doing bad things

What you don't understand is that we are not talking about country or nation - like I said - but the denounciations of specific acts of violence.

So you are comparing Carrots with Potatoes here.

carrot what's your thoughts on urakrine getting bombed by russia recently?

Horrible. Russia must get the F* away from Ukraine.

x men


they named something after x men?

Yes. This comes from a french pop culture and lefdt leaning politician youtuber. He wrote a book called the "magneto syndrom" explaining what he explains here in this video:

- Bad guys acts, the heroes reacts : Which leads to heroes fighting for the status co and not against the reasons of the radicalization of the bad guys.

- They suffered a lot and therefore radicalize : Which leads to the idea that the "good" approach is the approach of the Heroes. Meaning the approach that is always the one that stays moderate, pragmatic and non pro active. The approach that doesn't let suffering dictate the way we think. A position of priviledge.

- The Vengeance : Those Bad guys seems to always be seen as vengeful and not having a real reasonnable reason to fight. Which is a way to deligitimize their actions and the reasons why they fight.

- The end justify their means : The extremism is what distinguishes the bad guy and the good guys. Even why they are fighting the same problem. But this "extremism" has no real definition in those medias.. A rioter could be portrayed as a extremist in those stories.. and suddenly the narrative would transform them into a second Hitler for some reason. This is a way to deligitimize any actions that are not moderate and peacefull.

- Denonciation of the violences : This is the process in which we denounce any violences of the Bad Guys against the status co or against real oppression as bad but we somehow accept the violences that the good guys will inflict to the bad guys.

- One motivation can hide another : Its the idea that people who fight for a virtuous purpose is always seen as strange, effy. Its the ideas that those motivations are always seens as one motivation hidden another one. A bad one. If someone say that they fight for the good cause then it's sure - looking at those stories - that they are the bad guys, they MUST be the bad guys as anyone who proclame to do things for the good of the people are always bad. > This is done in a way again to deligitimize anyone who are fighting for "just causes" and most of the times people like me or leftist who are trying to move the status co.

- Totalitarism : Its the process that we tend to depict any project of radical transformation of society as authoritarism/totalitarism process. And its logical, a dominant culture - a liberal one here - will hardly create media that will try to question it or promotes its overtaking so we are left with media where in the majority of the cases, Bad guys who wants to completely reform society in a radicalize way will always do it through totalitarist processes.

- Free cruelty : Those bad guys who are fighting against the status co are often depicting atrocious actions for no other reasons that... they are bad guys.

To sum up, anyone in our world that want to REALLY take down the status co (and not what you think the right is doing right now), is treated as radical, extremist, bad guys, totalitarist, fascists.. just like those bad guys of the pop culture who where delibateraly depicted that way in order to undermine any behavior that would radicaly change the system.

 

[Bisoromi Bear]

- Bad guys acts, the heroes reacts : Which leads to heroes fighting for the status co and not against the reasons of the radicalization of the bad guys.

- They suffered a lot and therefore radicalize : Which leads to the idea that the "good" approach is the approach of the Heroes. Meaning the approach that is always the one that stays moderate, pragmatic and non pro active. A position of priviledge.

this is so stupid