At 3/18/17 08:37 PM, TylerFromTexas wrote:

Careful now, you are a guns rights person, too. That's not liberal!

Gun rights are civil rights. Being pro-gun is a liberal position.

Don't let the nuspeek fool you. The world liberal is a synonym for permissive, derived from the word liberty.

The phrase "Because FREEDOM, that's why" is an extemely liberal phrase.

At 3/18/17 07:58 PM, Xenomit wrote: Go back and look at my older posts. I ALWAYS advocated for the liberal positions, never any conservative ones.

Oh, because people never change? Shit, I forgot about that....oh wait...

That isn't an "alt right" term.

Yes it is.

In the common vernacular these days, it just means someone who either hates their own race, or is vehemently defensive of other people and gets extremely offended on behalf of others.

No, it is not "common vernacular" I had to look it up, because I had never heard it, not once, never until the rise of the alt right and this election, and until folks like you started throwing it around here or using it to describe me. Also it does NOT mean that. Because it's root is from "cucking" the practice where a man watches his wife be fucked by another man (usually a large black man). This is a term that of course would be thought up by a group that's White Nationalist in nature. Stop treating me like I'm stupid, and I'll try to pay you the same respect please and thank you.

Muslims aren't an ethnic group. They're a religious group.

My mistake. I really need to learn to use the more general "prejudice".

If all muslims were white, I'd hate the religion just as much, just like I abhor christianity. Like I said earlier, go back to my older posts and you'll see thousands of posts of my railing on christianity, and rarely mentioning islam in any way. It's not a race thing, it's an ideology thing, and the fact that you try so hard to MAKE it about race shows me how weak you know your arguments in favor of islam are.

We're not talking about Islam here, nor have we ever really done so in the past. I've simply asked you (and sometimes done a little more then that) asking you not to be so openly hostile to a group of people that want to enjoy and support the site. Especially since with your statements over in chat and elsewhere that being malicious and trolling hard for a certain part of the year to win "troll of the year" is about the shittiest reason I know for potentially driving people away from the site.

Nationalism is just the opposite of globalism. One wants a small independent government, the other wants a global god damn super government.

Not exactly. Nationalism also tends towards anti-immigration stances as well, which is how it usually dovetails into racist, and other prejudicial belief systems. Since you have a bias against all religions as you've pointed out here, that sort of goes to my point of why you might like the current right wing nationalism that's rising.

If you knew how hard I've fought against religion in schools and rights for gay people, you'd find it literally impossible to label me a conservative.

Maybe you should try talking about that more here instead of the prejudice stuff that makes you seem more right wing then.

Woe is me, politically center. Hated by both sides for being a sane human being.

Yeah....that isn't why. It's the name calling, the shitting on certain groups for just existing, and trolling and being an ass. That's the reason dude.

I consider it to be synonymous with stupidity. The mere concept that skin color or country of origin could have any form of direct effect on ones personality, intelligence or really any kind of personal traits is insanely fucking stupid and frankly I don't consider those who believe that kind of bullshit to be fully sentient beings.

I have a camo hat I like to wear just because people treat me completely differently when I put it on.

Nothing about me changes as a person, yet people perceive me completely differently.

The shit is a better exploit than fucking quote text.

and quote text is super awesome for subliminal messages, especially when someone doesn't read it before they hit reply

Now imagine how much more differently people would treat me if I could not just change the color of my hat, but the color of my skin and hair, even though that has absolutely zero effect on my moral and intellectual qualities? It makes you start to think that maybe people are crazy and easily manipulated.

You know, mentally ill.

Like @tylerfromtexas , who is astounded that a word derived from liberty to describe someone who loves freedom is a pejorative term used to describe those who would like extreme social controls, all because of exactly this sort of bait and switch, where you put a camo hat on old Imperial system and call it freedom.

There's nothing wrong with "racist" jokes. I mean a joke can't truly be racist because it's a joke. Is the concept of a joke really so hard for people to understand?

At 3/19/17 07:52 PM, DragonLimbo wrote: There's nothing wrong with "racist" jokes. I mean a joke can't truly be racist because it's a joke. Is the concept of a joke really so hard for people to understand?

Humor is pretty subjective. If you act like an ass and make a racist joke to someone and it actually genuinely hurts them, then yeah you'd be in the wrong.

However that shouldn't silence offensive humor. It's really a timing thing. There's a time and place for everything.

no one takes this question seriously. even if you see merit in it, you know racism is not a mental illness. if you can define racism as a mental illness, you can define anything as a mental illness. racism is just a learned behavior and thought pattern. i take an inefficient way home from work because i learned the route and haven't bothered to learn a different one because i'm comfortable with it. according to the premise of the thread, i can be diagnosed with a mental illness based on that criteria. that's dumb.

Read this the other day, thought it might be instructive to discussion here.

I don't really think racism is a mental illness honestly. I don't think it presents enough of the traits. I agree with ultra that it is a learned behavior usually. It tends to stem from lack of information, or usually assumptions based on nothing (or occasionally based on something real, but then extrapolated out to a ridiculous degree. Like a case of "persons of this race statistically do more of a particular crime" turns into someone hearing that saying "oh, ok, so those people all do that crime because of some defect in them because of their race....I'll just go with that vs. looking into any other possible factor). It can also, like this article points out, stem from a lack of exposure to people who aren't like you, or don't share your background or core ideals (or just the perception that they don't). This really goes back again to something that's been troubling me for awhile now, the way that while the internet can open you up to the world, it can also be very good at allowing you to close off, and retreat into a comfortable bubble of ideas that simply reinforce your views and make you feel like they are inherently and undisputedly correct because you can close yourself off from other narratives and ideas and facts.

The way I define mental illness is abnormal feelings or behaviours generated as a result of deviations of relative concentrations of particular neurotransmitters.

It cannot be argued that racism is caused by any surplus or deficit of any neurotransmitters.

So its caused by opinions of people. It is a social disease, not a psychological one.

At 3/19/17 09:02 PM, ThomasFang wrote:

At 3/19/17 07:52 PM, DragonLimbo wrote: There's nothing wrong with "racist" jokes. I mean a joke can't truly be racist because it's a joke. Is the concept of a joke really so hard for people to understand?

Humor is pretty subjective. If you act like an ass and make a racist joke to someone and it actually genuinely hurts them, then yeah you'd be in the wrong.

However, that shouldn't silence offensive humor. It's really a timing thing. There's a time and place for everything.

The part of humor that is subjective is if it's funny to you or not. What isn't subjective is if something is a joke. And no, it is not wrong to offend people. Someone's oversensitivity is their own problem that can't rightfully be blamed on the person that offended them.

At 3/20/17 08:51 PM, DragonLimbo wrote:

At 3/19/17 09:02 PM, ThomasFang wrote:

At 3/19/17 07:52 PM, DragonLimbo wrote: There's nothing wrong with "racist" jokes. I mean a joke can't truly be racist because it's a joke. Is the concept of a joke really so hard for people to understand?

Humor is pretty subjective. If you act like an ass and make a racist joke to someone and it actually genuinely hurts them, then yeah you'd be in the wrong.

However, that shouldn't silence offensive humor. It's really a timing thing. There's a time and place for everything.

The part of humor that is subjective is if it's funny to you or not. What isn't subjective is if something is a joke. And no, it is not wrong to offend people. Someone's oversensitivity is their own problem that can't rightfully be blamed on the person that offended them.

Hold up man, I kinda disagree here. Totally disregarding that this is, at best, tangentially related to the core of OP's post.

I'll concede that over-sensitivity is dictated on a case by case basis; that is to say that if you're telling a bunch of racially/sexually charged jokes to a crowd and someone gets offended, well, that comes with the territory and can't be helped.

Where I disagree, however, is where you suggest that it can't be blamed on the person that offended them, even to a slight degree. I mean, there's a distinct difference between acknowledging that you had a role in offending someone and facing repercussions of offending someone.

I feel that if I tell a racist/sexist/whatever-ist joke to someone and they get offended, it's proper to acknowledge that and simply carry on. However, I believe that it's hideously awful if an individual gets the shit sued out of them or their entire lives upended because their joke was considered offensive.

At 3/22/17 04:56 PM, Porkchop wrote: Where I disagree, however, is where you suggest that it can't be blamed on the person that offended them, even to a slight degree. I mean, there's a distinct difference between acknowledging that you had a role in offending someone and facing repercussions of offending someone.

I feel that if I tell a racist/sexist/whatever-ist joke to someone and they get offended, it's proper to acknowledge that and simply carry on.

I'm not saying that they don't have a role in it, but that they shouldn't be "blamed." Which are two things you are conflating.

Is it proper to acknowledge that? What do you even mean? Do you mean to accept or admit? You don't have to admit if you offended someone.

Blame:
assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.

At 3/22/17 07:41 PM, DragonLimbo wrote:

At 3/22/17 04:56 PM, Porkchop wrote: Where I disagree, however, is where you suggest that it can't be blamed on the person that offended them, even to a slight degree. I mean, there's a distinct difference between acknowledging that you had a role in offending someone and facing repercussions of offending someone.

I feel that if I tell a racist/sexist/whatever-ist joke to someone and they get offended, it's proper to acknowledge that and simply carry on.

I'm not saying that they don't have a role in it, but that they shouldn't be "blamed." Which are two things you are conflating.

Is it proper to acknowledge that? What do you even mean? Do you mean to accept or admit? You don't have to admit if you offended someone.

Blame:
assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.

You're right, mate. I see that I mixed up my stances a bit.

To wit, I don't feel that blame should be placed on somebody that offends.

I do feel that those that offend people with off-color jokes (like myself) should acknowledge when someone takes offense. 'Accept' and 'Admit', when used as a verb, means to acknowledge, but contextually, they hold different connotations. I misunderstood the point you were making.

Pretty sure humans are hard-wired to be more trusting of other humans that look like and act like them than the opposite.

At 3/22/17 08:50 PM, Radaketor wrote: Pretty sure humans are hard-wired to be more trusting of other humans that look like and act like them than the opposite.

Then how come most people like their pets more than other people?

At 3/22/17 08:59 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 3/22/17 08:50 PM, Radaketor wrote: Pretty sure humans are hard-wired to be more trusting of other humans that look like and act like them than the opposite.

Then how come most people like their pets more than other people?

I'm white, if I had a little black guy who I pet every day, fed, cared for, picked-up their shit and played with, I think I'd grow attached to him as well. I certainly wouldn't go ahead and hug a rabid dog on the street, though.

At 3/22/17 09:14 PM, Radaketor wrote:

I'm white.... I certainly wouldn't go ahead and hug a rabid dog on the street, though.

Make up your mind, are you white, or do you think dogs are disgusting?

Because if you won't let a dog kiss you in the mouth, you're not 100% all the way white, and you're going to have to accept that about yourself.