Total posts: 12
Posted in:
This dude throws a tantrum over the government taking his guns...but thinks it’s reasonable for the government to determine who does and doesn’t get to reproduce. Conservatives have officially jumped the shark.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Congratulation, you’re capable of writing a monologue. Nothing you said remotely addressed anything I said about your hypocrisy when it comes to you concern trolling about political racist rhetoric. At this point you’re pretty much just gish-galloping and saying whatever is expedient for you. You keep moving the goalpost on your already amorphous argument, that I think even you are losing track of your euphemism at this point. Dude this is a thread about how planting cauliflower vs yucca in a greenspace ignores the culture of the community it serves. If you can’t understand that concept, because you have the political assessment skills of an 8 year old...I don’t think you should be the person giving diatribes about wealth inequality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
So if you can understand the nuance about this, why aren’t you capable of seeing this is the exact same sentiment pro-choice people have towards abortions? Both sides view the government as some tyrannical entity. Both sides are afraid to concede on anything due to some slippery slope. Both sides also have shitty argumentation when you try to introduce any logic and common sense within these discussions. Unless you’re getting paid to be a pundit, I don’t see the benefit in fearmongering about the other side, or caricaturizing them to eliminate all complexity that their concerns have. You don’t have to agree, but at least try to understand where the other side is coming from.A tolerated "ban" by the federal government on "assault weapons" effectively constitutes a repeal of the 2nd amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Are you incapable of basic reading comprehension? What part of only banning AK-47’s isn’t the equivalent of banning all abortions don’t you understand. Removing all morals and partisanship from this hypothetical question you’re posing...you’re essentially saying banning one type of gun is the equivalent of banning all abortions. How? Did you fall asleep in math class? Do you have some skewed perception of what fairness is? Do you practice negotiations with with 2 years olds?
Unless you’re being duplicitous about wanting a compromise, please explain under what circumstances is banning 1 MODEL OF FIREARM, the equivalent of banning ALL (KEYWORD IS ALL) ABORTIONS? In addition to that if you’re somewhat knowledgeable of guns, you know it’s a semantic nightmare to pass a ban on a specific type of weapon anyway, so what’s to stop the pro-gun side from using a loophole to get out of a already one-side “compromise”?
If you can’t demonstrate that you can answer simple questions, should you necessarily be considered worth dialoguing with in any serious capacity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Probably something to do with content of character and not color of skin. Jus spitballin here amigo.
So when you fill out a job application, college application, voter registration, register for a firearm, or a driver license...when prompted to identify your race, do you identify your character instead? For the 20/20 census, are you going to describe your character of being literally too daft to understand the significance that marginalized communities of all races have their unique issues that have to be addressed taking their race and community into account?
Kinda thought Americans would be tired of the leaders with the same old rhetoric: "yo white people be lik dis..and yo people of color they be like dis..."
From a person who watches Fox News and Rebel Media unironically and has the same level of understanding that an 8-year-old has about American Politics...you should at the very least be smart enough to know that only an extremely unintelligent person or a bad faith actor would interpret what AOC said to be tantamount to a Def Comedy Jam routine from the 1990's.
But I guess yogurt is the flavor of divisive racist political rhetoric these days with the sweetness of that timeless racial baiting.
This is coming from the person who unironically takes what Tucker Carlson and Rebel Media says at face value hahaha. Concerned troll, is concerned hahaha. I'm going to be charitable for the sake of the argument. Let say AOC is the race-baiting cartoon character fan-fiction you keep fantasizing about in your head, do you think you yourself aren't contributing to the divisive racist political rhetoric you claim to detest so much? If AOC is Neo, people like you are Agent Smith and vice versa.
To further prove my point that you're a race-baiter can you explain this post on this thread? https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1785
All taxes paid to support welfare are reparations for choosing to be more productive with your life.
How can you in one thread claim you're tired of the "yo white people be lik dis..and yo people of color they be like dis..." racist political rhetoric and are above the fray of race-baiting, BUT you have no problem saying silly shit like that post hahaha? Regardless of whatever your opinion is on slavery reparations, how are you not apart of the racist political rhetoric of today if you assume that the 40 million blacks in America are all on welfare, not productive and in your opinion already receiving reparations in the form of taxes that you assume that the 40 million blacks in America aren't paying as well. Dude, I haven't even been on this site too long, and it's already evident that you're a clown. You think you're being objective, by pretending you're indifferent about race...but you're the complete opposite. You're 100% consumed by race, and you're a proud soldier doing your part for your team in muddying up the dialogue by arguing in bad faith. If you were half of the concerned troll that you pretend to be about something as benign about AOC talking about yucca and cauliflower when it comes to the left, as you are with the right...why didn't you say anything when @Death23 said this?
American blacks are better off because of slavery because if it didn't happen then they'd have been born and raised in sub-saharan Africa. The slaves were the ones whose lives were much worse due to slavery. They're dead, and the slave owners pretty much lost everything in the civil war anyway. Seems like a wash to me.
If you want to pretend like you're universally concerned about racist rhetoric that happens on both sides, it's mighty funny what you find yourself going to the mat for, and what you're oddly silent about. If you're going to cloak your disingenuous, at least be smart enough to make an attempt to maintain some kind of consistency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
New offer; Only guns allowed are pistols, rifles, and shotguns in exchange for banning abortions nationwide. Would you accept?
No, that's not a compromise at all. Democrats have to ban all forms of abortion nationwide, while Republicans don't have to get rid of anything. Both parties would have to lose a wedge issue of equal value. For someone who knows guns, I can easily make an argument that component-wise, a pistol, rifle, and shotgun are indistinguishable from an AK-47, and the only differences really are in appearance. Only banning some guns like "assault rifles" is the equivalent of banning abortion in the 3rd trimester.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If being able to understand simple concepts without feeling the need to misrepresenting them in some flimsy strawman makes me an apologist, what exactly are you? A hack? A person who argues in bad faith?Well it's nice to have such a vibrant apologist for AOC's comments here.
Nevertheless, her frequent use of "people of color" is misleading at best, and racist at worst.
No offense, you're either have the cognitive abilities of a cup of yogurt or you're just a hack who tows the party line and sentiments at any cost. AOC is from the Bronx, and her constituents who live within the Bronx are mostly people of color. How is acknowledging your constituents who are mostly people of color as people of color racist?
People of color belong to every culture in the country, not just the culture bubble AOC lives in.
Yeah, you can't possibly be all that bright at all. Yes, people of color belong to every culture in the country, good job for acknowledging that...however AOC is referring to the people of color WITHIN THE DISTRICT THAT SHE REPRESENTS. Jeez, do you always argue in such bad faith, or are you the only unsupervised 8 year old allowed to be on this site.
Created:
Posted in:
If it's not about race, why would she say "people of color" (assuming skin color is a genetic race)
Because PEOPLE OF COLOR predominately live within the community in which she's talking about where the green spaces are being implemented. Race is a social/cultural construct...saying group x who lives in community x are blank, isn't making something about race...it's an observation. If I said women suffer from post-partum depression, am I making it about gender, or am I identifying which group of people are mostly impacted by something? If I say young adults are having difficulty finding employment after college...am I making something about age or generation? Is this really something that has to be explained? If you went to a church full of Christians, do you go out of your way of not referring to them as "Christians"? If someone burned down a church that just so happened to be Christians, should AOC not say "Christians of 'blank' community got their church burn down" in fear that hacks like you would assume she making a church burning about "Christians"? Is a minority community really that hard of a concept to grasp?
Are we also to assume people of color must hate cauliflower due to genetic DNA differences manifested in "skin color"?
This is like a classic example of if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The focus isn't that people of "x" skin color are genetically predisposed to hate cauliflower, the focus is that PEOPLE OF "X" COMMUNITY have a culture in which yucca is apart of their diet and cauliflower isn't and it should be taken into consideration when planning what goes into their green space planned specifically in their community. Every culture has their cuisine and their diets are based upon their culture...not skin color. Jamaicans and Ethiopians are on average the same color...but that doesn't mean they have the same cuisine/diet. Norwegians and Australians are the same color/race on average, do you think their vastly different cultures and geographical locations don't have an impact on why their diets are different? Your assumption should be people of different cultures eat certain foods, and planning a green space shouldn't done without taking that into consideration.
Or people of color can't possibly work in a WV coal mine?
For someone who complains about the race card being used, you sure do oddly bring up race where no one mentions it. It's not that people of color don't/can't work in West Virginian coal mines...it's JUST THAT WEST VIRGINIA HAS A POPULATION THAT'S 93% WHITE and the majority of people that will be impacted by a lost of coal mines will be white people. Furthermore, once again when I brought up that example, race wasn't the focal point...it was that the coal industry in WV being replaced by green energy and how the people will be put out of a job if that happens. And no matter how good the intentions someone might have in wanting to put green energy in West Virginia...it would be an act reminiscent to colonialism in which outsiders of West Virginia will be making decisions for West Virginians without consulting with what their community will need. Seriously, this isn't a hard concept to grasp.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Hmmmm, it's kinda like a potato if I could describe to someone who never ate it before.Welcome. What is yucca?
Food European Spanish ate as colonizers.
Greyparrot if you don't like everything being about race, was this comment supposed to be some kind of "satire" of you NOT bringing up race, by bringing up race haha?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You're just mostly demonstrating you're a hack if that's all you took out of what she said. This isn't about race, it's about addressing a community's needs based on their community's needs...and not what you assume they'll need. TO YOU yucca over cauliflower is of little importance...but it'll be safe to say that's not YOUR CULTURE. However, if some hairbun avocado toast eating liberal moved to West Virginia and told all the coal miners and their families..."yeah, like coal is bad and dirty...and you guys totally would be better off with these green windmills instead". Having good intentions isn't enough, you also need to be conscious of that community's needs...because to act without doing so would be reminiscent of colonialism in which one group believe their way of life is superior and it's their obligation to save the primitives from their Yucca, Coal Mines, or Healthy School Lunch. That's what she meant by colonialism...you reducing everything she said to being about race is literally no different than you assuming everything someone says is about race.
Created:
Posted in:
1) Left
2) This isn't really much of a compromise. One side gets rid of abortions...the other side gets a loophole to just buy an AR-15. Unlike most people on the left, I'm all for banning abortion because I think it's morally indefensible in all instances that don't involve rape or a mother being at a high risk of dying during the pregnancy. HOWEVER it's a bullshit trade for Democrats to lose their wedge issue for Republicans to only ban AK-47 and not all "assault weapons". A fair compromise, in my opinion, would be to ban all guns for Republicans and for Democrats to ban all abortions.
If you just ban AK-47's...someone could just buy an AR-15 or any of the 100 different types of assault rifles. And as a gun enthusiast myself I know just banning "assault rifles" is a semantic loophole because anything can be an "assault rifle" and any "assault rifle" can amorphously not be classified as an assault rifle based whatever components you do or don't take into consideration. It just makes more sense to ban all gun to make it comparable to banning all abortions...both sides equally disappointing their base.
That will actually be the compromise.
Created:
Posted in:
Wait a second, so what's the difference between AOC saying people of a certain community who mostly eats yucca that they ought to plant cauliflower despite cauliflower not being apart of their usual diet....and conservatives getting triggered by former first lady Michelle Obama telling kids to eat healthy?
But the first lady's push for healthier meals and more exercise, which marked its first anniversary this month, has provoked a backlash from the right, who complain that the only thing here that's supersized is Big Brother.And in January, some conservatives even suggested that Obama was endangering people, blaming an increase in pedestrian deaths on the first lady's campaign by saying that Americans were putting themselves at risk by walking more.
In a country where obesity is/was a growing problem, conservatives showed their discontent with Michelle Obama promoting her idea of a healthy lifestyle on them. Fast forward to the present day were some inner-city communities have a lack of access to healthy foods, AOC is expressing that simply putting a green space in a neighborhood that completely disregards the culture of the people they're trying to serve/help is reminiscent of colonialism. It's one thing to be proud of your culture, it's a whole different thing to try to implement your culture upon a people not asking for it. Despite good intentions, it just comes off as..."hahaha only savages eat yucca(eat cheeseburgers), try this cauliflower (healthy school lunch) instead you backward people".
I honestly see no difference from what AOC said, and what conservatives expressed when Michelle Obama made it her goal to make sure kids ate healthy. If anything, AOC's criticism made more sense, than people moaning about their fat kids eating carrot sticks.
Created: