ID's are racist except when buying a gun, driving...

Page 5 of 9 [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

uncommondenominator
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 469

09 Apr 2021, 2:23 pm

Brictoria wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
it is futile to expect dialogue here.

Probably true, but it's still worth trying to demonstrate to those who assume people of specific race(s) lack the intelligence or ability to acquire ID's, while those of all other races don't, how racist their beliefs are.

go ahead and keep twisting the truth about our country of which you know NOTHING. OUTSIDER.


Strange, I don't recall seeing any claims made about a country...

I do recall seeing claims made that indicate I've chosen to interpret as a belief that people of certain race(s) lack the same intelligence and capabilities as those of all other races, which both demeans all those of the selected race(s) as well as shows the person(s)\group(s) making the claims consider that those of the selected race(s) are somehow "lesser" than other people - Views which most people would consider to be highly racist mainly by completely ignoring the aspect of institutionalized racial inequality, and acting like people think other races are "lesser", rather than "sabotaged".


Fixed if for ya :wink:

If it's supposedly "racist" to imply that they are "lesser", or to treat them in a "demeaning" manner, then why is it ok to imply that if they don't have these things, it MUST be because they're "lazy", or lack "personal responsibility"?

C'mon, you're not being smart, you're just manipulating words.

Mr Reynholm wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
Texas voter ID can be a driver license, Texas voter ID certificate, Texas personal ID card (issued by DPS), Military ID, Handgun license, US citizenship certificate, US passport. So minorities are unable to get any of these? BTW the Jim Crow laws were put into effect by the DNC.

not if you [like me] live out in the sticks where there are not those things, not public transit, and many pofolk don't own cars or have licenses even. one has to live within reasonable distance of a major city to get those things. and saying the DNC started jim crow is a giant red herring, you didn't get the memo that the parties basically traded places after LBJ passed the civil rights laws, saying "we've lost the south." it is the GOP now which is like the OLD DNC, in terms of its enthusiasm for reviving jim crow. there is much about life that smug middle-class types just don't comprehend, and likely never will until and unless they are brought down to pofolk level by some misfortune. even then a lot of 'em don't get it, they still stubbornly see themselves [as steinbeck tartly put it] as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

The old "Racists Switched Parties" myth has been debunked repeatedly. Even if one does live remotely, this is not indicative of everyone the DNC says is disenfranchised by these laws. That is why we have absentee voting. I had to vote absentee in the 90's while out of the USA. All it takes is contacting the Election board. The point is that the problem the left have with these laws is that they want voter fraud to continue unabated.


And as for this nonsense...

The parties switching platforms is well-documented, not "debunked repeatedly". But you're still warbling about non-existent "VoTeR FrAwLd!! !", so... :roll: :roll: :roll:



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,237
Location: Melbourne, Australia

10 Apr 2021, 1:56 am

uncommondenominator wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
it is futile to expect dialogue here.

Probably true, but it's still worth trying to demonstrate to those who assume people of specific race(s) lack the intelligence or ability to acquire ID's, while those of all other races don't, how racist their beliefs are.

go ahead and keep twisting the truth about our country of which you know NOTHING. OUTSIDER.


Strange, I don't recall seeing any claims made about a country...

I do recall seeing claims made that indicate I've chosen to interpret as a belief that people of certain race(s) lack the same intelligence and capabilities as those of all other races, which both demeans all those of the selected race(s) as well as shows the person(s)\group(s) making the claims consider that those of the selected race(s) are somehow "lesser" than other people - Views which most people would consider to be highly racist mainly by completely ignoring the aspect of institutionalized racial inequality, and acting like people think other races are "lesser", rather than "sabotaged".


Fixed if for ya intentionally altered to infer meaning not present nor intended\believed by original author :wink:


You seemed to have made a mistake in your description of what you did with my post...I've corrected it for you.

Quote:
If it's supposedly "racist" to imply that they are "lesser", or to treat them in a "demeaning" manner, then why is it ok to imply that if they don't have these things, it MUST be because they're "lazy", or lack "personal responsibility"?


Strange: You seem to have (intentionally?) ignored the possibility that they had individually decided in the past that they didn't desire or require those items either - Almost as though the "contribution" was intended as an attack rather than seeking an honest conversation...

It is also interesting to note that you believe it is only supposedly "racist" to imply that people of any given race are "lesser" than those of others, or to treat the people of that race in a "demeaning" manner - This was certainly enlightening (on a character basis), and will undoubtably be helpful in understanding\interpreting future "contributions"...


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
"Never forget that you have every right to question any individual, system, movement, or group that only tolerates you when you think and behave exactly like them" - Africa Brooke

Quote:
“There was a saying that a man's true character was revealed in defeat. I thought it was also revealed in victory.”
― Alison Goodman, Eon: Dragoneye Reborn


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,892
Location: Long Island, New York

10 Apr 2021, 5:58 am

It is all about the votes. Republicans are for these laws because they will suppress the Democratic vote which is why Democrats are against them.

Yes, race is a factor in that the blacks vote overwhelmingly for one party and this is the result of policies and rhetoric. And bigotry is a factor in why straight nonwhite people vote more Republican. Those are factors but the most important one is votes. I have no doubt that if blacks still voted overwhelmingly republican it would be Dems proposing these laws in the name of election security and Republicans screaming descriminination. No doubt at all.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person.


QuantumChemist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,316
Location: Midwest

10 Apr 2021, 10:03 am

auntblabby wrote:
not if you [like me] live out in the sticks where there are not those things, not public transit, and many pofolk don't own cars or have licenses even. one has to live within reasonable distance of a major city to get those things.


When I lived in rural Kansas, I saw this first hand. I knew people who lived their entire lives within a thirty mile radius of a small town, as they did not have a car or truck. They never got a drivers license because they never needed one. It was common for them to walk miles into town to get things. Big items that they could not carry themselves were delivered to their farm. They lived off of their farmland. Most people would go crazy if forced to live like this, but that is the world that they grew up in. There are more like them in the very rural areas of this country.

Rant - I recently had to renew my drivers license in the state that I now reside. The DMV would not accept my original birth certificate for the ID portion of the process. I had to send money back to my birth state and have them mail me a new birth certificate with the same exact information on it. It also took a month to get it in the mail. That process was a blatant money grab and I can see how it could stop a poorer person from affording the license.



uncommondenominator
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 469

10 Apr 2021, 2:06 pm

Brictoria wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
it is futile to expect dialogue here.

Probably true, but it's still worth trying to demonstrate to those who assume people of specific race(s) lack the intelligence or ability to acquire ID's, while those of all other races don't, how racist their beliefs are.

go ahead and keep twisting the truth about our country of which you know NOTHING. OUTSIDER.


Strange, I don't recall seeing any claims made about a country...

I do recall seeing claims made that indicate I've chosen to interpret as a belief that people of certain race(s) lack the same intelligence and capabilities as those of all other races, which both demeans all those of the selected race(s) as well as shows the person(s)\group(s) making the claims consider that those of the selected race(s) are somehow "lesser" than other people - Views which most people would consider to be highly racist mainly by completely ignoring the aspect of institutionalized racial inequality, and acting like people think other races are "lesser", rather than "sabotaged".


Fixed if for ya intentionally altered to infer meaning not present nor intended\believed by original author :wink:


You seemed to have made a mistake in your description of what you did with my post...I've corrected it for you.

Quote:
If it's supposedly "racist" to imply that they are "lesser", or to treat them in a "demeaning" manner, then why is it ok to imply that if they don't have these things, it MUST be because they're "lazy", or lack "personal responsibility"?


Strange: You seem to have (intentionally?) ignored the possibility that they had individually decided in the past that they didn't desire or require those items either - Almost as though the "contribution" was intended as an attack rather than seeking an honest conversation...

It is also interesting to note that you believe it is only supposedly "racist" to imply that people of any given race are "lesser" than those of others, or to treat the people of that race in a "demeaning" manner - This was certainly enlightening (on a character basis), and will undoubtably be helpful in understanding\interpreting future "contributions"...


You're funny :lol: HoNkA hOnKa!

I'd talk slower for you, but this is text, so I have no control over that. Read slower maybe?

Or perhaps I should go fetch Inigo Montoya. "You keep using that word..."

"Supposedly" - "according to what is generally assumed or believed (often used to indicate that the speaker doubts the truth of the statement)".

OTHER people are "supposedly" (thus giving them the benefit of doubt) engaging in those beliefs. They may not be, and framing it as "supposedly" covers the possibility that maybe they aren't.

It's no different than the legal position of saying that someone "allegedly" committed a crime, since it hasn't been proven yet. You're still just playing word games. It's cute, but substantively meaningless.

And besides, you're going to "interpret" me however you want anyways, as though that carries any weight.

It was a fair question I asked. "If this is claimed, then please explain this disparity." You even gave the answer I was expecting.

When you said "You seem to have (intentionally?) ignored the possibility that they had individually decided in the past that they didn't desire or require those items either".

Yes, I did intentionally ignore that possibility, so that YOU would say it for me. That's the standard BS talking point. They CHOOSE to be where they are. They CHOOSE to have, or not have, what they do or don't have. It's a CHOICE, of course. Nobody is FORCING them, they CHOOSE to. :roll:

Let's go down that road, shall we? Why would someone CHOOSE to live a worse life? Why are there so many POC that just happen to "choose" to live a certain way? Why do they CHOOSE that way of life, only to complain about it? What exactly is the reason that they complain about a life they CHOOSE for themselves? Go ahead, take your time. Have they been tricked? Lied to? Fooled? Do they not know better? Do they just want things for free? What possible reason is there? Please, enlighten us. If they CAN, but simply CHOOSE not to, why do they make that choice?

Go ahead, tell us. I would LOVE to hear you explain it. Please. :D



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,237
Location: Melbourne, Australia

11 Apr 2021, 12:32 am

uncommondenominator wrote:
You're funny :lol: HoNkA hOnKa!

I'd talk slower for you, but this is text, so I have no control over that. Read slower maybe?


Opens with personal attack on the intelligence of the person being responded to...

uncommondenominator wrote:
Go ahead, tell us. I would LOVE to hear you explain it. Please. :D


Closes with request to continue "discussion"...

Were this to have been an isolated incident by the author, it may have been worth addressing the post.

Unfortunately, following on from re-writing other people's posts to present a message which differs significantly from that which they wrote and claiming to have "fixed" them for that person, it comes across as a poor attempt at continued trolling.


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
"Never forget that you have every right to question any individual, system, movement, or group that only tolerates you when you think and behave exactly like them" - Africa Brooke

Quote:
“There was a saying that a man's true character was revealed in defeat. I thought it was also revealed in victory.”
― Alison Goodman, Eon: Dragoneye Reborn


uncommondenominator
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 469

11 Apr 2021, 2:40 am

Brictoria wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
You're funny :lol: HoNkA hOnKa!

I'd talk slower for you, but this is text, so I have no control over that. Read slower maybe?


Opens with personal attack on the intelligence of the person being responded to...

uncommondenominator wrote:
Go ahead, tell us. I would LOVE to hear you explain it. Please. :D


Closes with request to continue "discussion"...

Were this to have been an isolated incident by the author, it may have been worth addressing the post.

Unfortunately, following on from re-writing other people's posts to present a message which differs significantly from that which they wrote and claiming to have "fixed" them for that person, it comes across as a poor attempt at continued trolling.


I'm sorry, all I'm seeing is excuses for why you suddenly don't want to pursue this path of discussion anymore. Up until last post you were dead certain you had me in a "gotcha".

Remember, when you said "You seem to have (intentionally?) ignored the possibility that they had individually decided in the past that they didn't desire or require those items either" - well, if that's your ever-so-clever counter argument, back it up. Elaborate for us. Not just for l'il ol' me, I'm clearly a biased trololol (even though you CONTINUALLY engage with me, until you get in over your head, and then retreat) - do it so that everyone else can see it with their own two eyes, and let them decide for themselves. I'm just full of hot air, so nobody would bother to listen to me, right? I'm just not sure why you're suddenly reluctant to continue talking about your own defense, which you seemed rather confident about. Why so shy all of a sudden? Surely your explanation will be sound and logical.

It never gets old... They go from eager to pounce to scuttling away in no time flat...

"Oh yeah, well what about THAT?! !"

Ok, lets talk about that.

"...I don't wanna talk about that anymore..."

If you're gonna come roaring out of the chute and then pivot and run away that easily, I am gonna razz you a little, just for the absurdity of the matter. It's silly and funny. But I'd hardly call it an "attack".

But I digress...

You're supposed to be putting me in my place by explaining to me how I "...seem to have (intentionally?) ignored the possibility that they had individually decided in the past that they didn't desire or require those items either" in further detail, by elaborating further on your own Gotcha! theory that "...they had individually decided in the past that they didn't desire or require those items either" that you seem to claim is the case. I might understand your reluctance to address a point that I brought up, but this is YOUR talking point. Suddenly you won't stand behind your own argument? Funny that... :roll:



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,237
Location: Melbourne, Australia

11 Apr 2021, 4:45 am

uncommondenominator wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
You're funny :lol: HoNkA hOnKa!

I'd talk slower for you, but this is text, so I have no control over that. Read slower maybe?


Opens with personal attack on the intelligence of the person being responded to...

uncommondenominator wrote:
Go ahead, tell us. I would LOVE to hear you explain it. Please. :D


Closes with request to continue "discussion"...

Were this to have been an isolated incident by the author, it may have been worth addressing the post.

Unfortunately, following on from re-writing other people's posts to present a message which differs significantly from that which they wrote and claiming to have "fixed" them for that person, it comes across as a poor attempt at continued trolling.


I'm sorry, all I'm seeing is excuses for why you suddenly don't want to pursue this path of discussion anymore. Up until last post you were dead certain you had me in a "gotcha".

Remember, when you said "You seem to have (intentionally?) ignored the possibility that they had individually decided in the past that they didn't desire or require those items either" - well, if that's your ever-so-clever counter argument, back it up. Elaborate for us. Not just for l'il ol' me, I'm clearly a biased trololol


Simply put: you appear to put a degree of thought into your posts...

By posting the following responce previously:
uncommondenominator wrote:
If it's supposedly "racist" to imply that they are "lesser", or to treat them in a "demeaning" manner, then why is it ok to imply that if they don't have these things, it MUST be because they're "lazy", or lack "personal responsibility"?

You either intentionally ignored the option of personal choice\need (the "intentional") posibillity, or had not considered it (hence the question mark appended to the suggestion it was intentional), through your use of the word "MUST" (which you specifically capitalized to emphasise the point), intended to show there were no other alternative reasons you were able to contemplate.

Having once re-written a post to "fix it" by rewording to give a completely different meaning to what had been posted, and following up with a post making claims that the author impied something which goes against the content of their posts, coupled with the apparent thought put into the posts leads to the conclusion that it would not be possible to have an honest discussion.

The inclusion of petty sarcasm and attmpting to antagonise the person you are responding to, coupled with frequest misrepresntation of their posts certainly meet the definition of trolling:
Quote:
to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
"Never forget that you have every right to question any individual, system, movement, or group that only tolerates you when you think and behave exactly like them" - Africa Brooke

Quote:
“There was a saying that a man's true character was revealed in defeat. I thought it was also revealed in victory.”
― Alison Goodman, Eon: Dragoneye Reborn


uncommondenominator
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 469

11 Apr 2021, 11:31 pm

You, most recently:

Brictoria wrote:

You either intentionally ignored the option of personal choice\need (the "intentional") posibillity, or had not considered it (hence the question mark appended to the suggestion it was intentional), through your use of the word "MUST" (which you specifically capitalized to emphasise the point), intended to show there were no other alternative reasons you were able to contemplate.



Where you still seem unsure as to my actions. And yet...

Me, BEFORE your above retort:

uncommondenominator wrote:

Yes, I did intentionally ignore that possibility, so that YOU would say it for me. That's the standard BS talking point.



Either you DIDN'T READ that part (eg. "read slower", mr smarty), or you IGNORED that part, in the process of carving up my message so you'd be arguing with ME rather than MY POINT (ad-hominem), while unironically whining about being misrepresented and personal attacks :roll:

The fact that it's apparently sincere makes the farce even funnier. Accidental satire is endlessly amusing. HoNkA hOnKa!! !

And I applaud the mental gymnastics necessary to paint me as both putting thought into what I say worthy of response, AND just being an ignorant troll not worthy of engagement. Must get tiring hopping from foot to foot like that. I also applaud your ability to not only masterfully cherry-pick, but also find the most menial lowest hanging fruit to respond to.

Anyways, back to THE TOPIC.

You had just made the claim that people CHOSE to be in the situations they are in. Your words, in case you forgot them were "...that they had individually decided in the past that they didn't desire or require those items either..." as to why they are where they are. In your most recent quote shown above, you summarize it as "personal choice".

So, tell us, why they make those choices? Why would they choose that? What are they choosing between? Do they just wake up one day and decide out of the blue, "I'm just not gonna get an ID, no idea why, but I'm sticking to it!" and that's all there is to it? If they lack "personal responsibility", WHY do they lack personal responsibility? Why do some people have it and others don't?

You were happy to go down this road before. You're still using the fact that I (intentionally) ignored that point as a barb to go after me with. Yet you still won't address the CONTENT of YOUR OWN argument. You say they lack "personal responsibility". Ok, Let's talk about the thing YOU brought up. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

This whole topic is about the disparity and claims of racial inequality regarding the ability of POC to participate in the election system. YOU claim it's just a matter of "personal responsibility". Maybe take some for yourself, and stand behind your own claim, instead of trying to put me on the defensive.

As such, lets assume you're right. POC aren't being subjected to voter suppression, they just lack personal responsibility. Tell us all why POC are apparently more prone to lacking personal responsibility than their caucasian counterparts, given that POC seem to be the ones at odds with the voting laws, and not so much the white ppl.

Or, if that's not what you're position is, please clarify. But I bet you won't. I bet you'll try to talk about anything and everything EXCEPT the point that you yourself brought up.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,237
Location: Melbourne, Australia

12 Apr 2021, 9:39 am

uncommondenominator wrote:
You, most recently:

Brictoria wrote:
You either intentionally ignored the option of personal choice\need (the "intentional") posibillity, or had not considered it (hence the question mark appended to the suggestion it was intentional), through your use of the word "MUST" (which you specifically capitalized to emphasise the point), intended to show there were no other alternative reasons you were able to contemplate.


Where you still seem unsure as to my actions. And yet...

Me, BEFORE your above retort:

uncommondenominator wrote:
Yes, I did intentionally ignore that possibility, so that YOU would say it for me. That's the standard BS talking point.


Either you DIDN'T READ that part (eg. "read slower", mr smarty), or you IGNORED that part, in the process of carving up my message so you'd be arguing with ME rather than MY POINT (ad-hominem), while unironically whining about being misrepresented and personal attacks


Looking back over the thread...

You posed a request:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Remember, when you said "You seem to have (intentionally?) ignored the possibility that they had individually decided in the past that they didn't desire or require those items either" - well, if that's your ever-so-clever counter argument, back it up. Elaborate for us. Not just for l'il ol' me, I'm clearly a biased trololol


An answer was supplied (and selectively quoted in your reply as shown above):
Brictoria wrote:
Simply put: you appear to put a degree of thought into your posts...

By posting the following responce previously:
uncommondenominator wrote:
If it's supposedly "racist" to imply that they are "lesser", or to treat them in a "demeaning" manner, then why is it ok to imply that if they don't have these things, it MUST be because they're "lazy", or lack "personal responsibility"?

You either intentionally ignored the option of personal choice\need (the "intentional") posibillity, or had not considered it (hence the question mark appended to the suggestion it was intentional), through your use of the word "MUST" (which you specifically capitalized to emphasise the point), intended to show there were no other alternative reasons you were able to contemplate.


Your responce to this, a portion of which in included in the opening quote, attempts to distract from the fact that the request had been answered - using the information available at the time the original statement being questioned was made - because "information" (your "justification" for not having been aware of the alternative possibility until I had suggested it) that was not available at the time of making the original statement was not referred to, as well as including further attacks on the person you were replying to.

Conclusion:
Yet further evidence of a lack of good faith, as demonstrated by the tone of the responce and language used in it, as well as through the reaction when "information" (justification) that was not available at the time of making the statement being questioned was not referred to in explaining the reasoning behind the statement - If the "information" (your "justification" for not having been aware of the alternative possibility until I had suggested it) wasn't available at the time of making a statement, then there is no way that it could have formed part of the reasoning behind the statement, and so would have no part in explaining it.

As a side note, it is interesting (and not unexpected) to observe the continuation of the previously noted behaviour:
Brictoria wrote:
The inclusion of petty sarcasm and attmpting to antagonise the person you are responding to, coupled with frequest misrepresntation of their posts certainly meet the definition of trolling:
Quote:
to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
"Never forget that you have every right to question any individual, system, movement, or group that only tolerates you when you think and behave exactly like them" - Africa Brooke

Quote:
“There was a saying that a man's true character was revealed in defeat. I thought it was also revealed in victory.”
― Alison Goodman, Eon: Dragoneye Reborn


Daddy63
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 389

12 Apr 2021, 10:03 am

It's not just about skin color. "Progressives" have long been dividing people by gender, religious beliefs, &/or sexual orientations in addition to skin color for the sole purpose of blaming/shaming some and telling the rest they are victims/liabilities who must be taken care of by the government. Everything is expected to be free from a basic income to education, housing and healthcare for those "victims." Now those "victims" can't even be expected to properly register and vote. "Progressives" want to register their "victims" automatically regardless of their voting eligibility and even vote for them through ballot harvesting schemes. If that isn't a total destruction of individual responsibility and democracy, then what is?

As for those who are blamed/shamed, if they openly reject progressive ideology, they are called names like 'racist,' 'handmaid,' 'Uncle Tom,' 'privileged,' and 'White supremacist.'

Even President Biden jumped into the hate-fest telling POC they "ain't black" only because they were taking the personal responsibility to vote and rejecting his progressive ideology.



uncommondenominator
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 469

12 Apr 2021, 12:55 pm

Brictoria wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
You, most recently:

Brictoria wrote:
You either intentionally ignored the option of personal choice\need (the "intentional") posibillity, or had not considered it (hence the question mark appended to the suggestion it was intentional), through your use of the word "MUST" (which you specifically capitalized to emphasise the point), intended to show there were no other alternative reasons you were able to contemplate.


Where you still seem unsure as to my actions. And yet...

Me, BEFORE your above retort:

uncommondenominator wrote:
Yes, I did intentionally ignore that possibility, so that YOU would say it for me. That's the standard BS talking point.


Either you DIDN'T READ that part (eg. "read slower", mr smarty), or you IGNORED that part, in the process of carving up my message so you'd be arguing with ME rather than MY POINT (ad-hominem), while unironically whining about being misrepresented and personal attacks


Looking back over the thread...

You posed a request:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Remember, when you said "You seem to have (intentionally?) ignored the possibility that they had individually decided in the past that they didn't desire or require those items either" - well, if that's your ever-so-clever counter argument, back it up. Elaborate for us. Not just for l'il ol' me, I'm clearly a biased trololol


An answer was supplied (and selectively quoted in your reply as shown above):
Brictoria wrote:
Simply put: you appear to put a degree of thought into your posts...

By posting the following responce previously:
uncommondenominator wrote:
If it's supposedly "racist" to imply that they are "lesser", or to treat them in a "demeaning" manner, then why is it ok to imply that if they don't have these things, it MUST be because they're "lazy", or lack "personal responsibility"?

You either intentionally ignored the option of personal choice\need (the "intentional") posibillity, or had not considered it (hence the question mark appended to the suggestion it was intentional), through your use of the word "MUST" (which you specifically capitalized to emphasise the point), intended to show there were no other alternative reasons you were able to contemplate.


Your responce to this, a portion of which in included in the opening quote, attempts to distract from the fact that the request had been answered - using the information available at the time the original statement being questioned was made - because "information" (your "justification" for not having been aware of the alternative possibility until I had suggested it) that was not available at the time of making the original statement was not referred to, as well as including further attacks on the person you were replying to.

Conclusion:
Yet further evidence of a lack of good faith, as demonstrated by the tone of the responce and language used in it, as well as through the reaction when "information" (justification) that was not available at the time of making the statement being questioned was not referred to in explaining the reasoning behind the statement - If the "information" (your "justification" for not having been aware of the alternative possibility until I had suggested it) wasn't available at the time of making a statement, then there is no way that it could have formed part of the reasoning behind the statement, and so would have no part in explaining it.

As a side note, it is interesting (and not unexpected) to observe the continuation of the previously noted behaviour:
Brictoria wrote:
The inclusion of petty sarcasm and attmpting to antagonise the person you are responding to, coupled with frequest misrepresntation of their posts certainly meet the definition of trolling:
Quote:
to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll


Blah blah blah :roll:

The question I asked was - assuming you are correct, and that they do lack personal responsibility - WHY do they lack personal responsibility more than other groups of people? You have not answered that yet, unless I'm to assume that you're saying that they lack personal responsibility "because they lack personal responsibility". Cos that seems to be the substance of the answer, which you seem to grow increasingly reluctant to talk about, and are now quoting me back at myself, to speak FOR YOU, for some reason, as though my quote contains your answer to a question you haven't even answered yet. Why not use your own words to explain your position?

I told you that you wouldn't answer the question. Unironically whining about how I'm trying to distract from things, while you're the one dodging and running away from your own point by whimpering about the manner in which I present my arguments, and vaguely using my own quotes to somehow speak for you. I quote you to respond to the quote. You're quoting me as though my words contain your answer - as if you don't whine about me speaking for you when I do suggest or imply what you might be saying - but then you pivot and are totally ok with using exclusively my words to speak for you, instead of using your own words, or quotes, to explain. I suppose it's a total coincidence that if you use MY words to imply your answer rather than actually SAYING it for YOURSELF, then you get to avoid actually having to say the thing yourself. You can in fact say "I never said that", even if you imply that my words are the answer, cos they are MY words, and quite literally, YOU didn't say it, I did.

But I'm sure that has nothing to do with it :roll:

Your ability to pretentiously pontificate notwithstanding, you're still just blowing rubbish. Imagine using that many words to say nothing of substance. What a waste. Just cos you put headings like "Conclusion:" doesn't suddenly give your nonsense gravitas that it didn't already have. The façade of your acumen is transparent to those who actually posses it.

The question I asked was - assuming you are correct, and that they do lack personal responsibility - WHY do they lack personal responsibility more than other groups of people? You have not answered that yet. You claim you have, but then quote MY words, not yours. Use YOUR words. If you have already answered the question, as you claim you have, show me YOUR quote where you answered it, not MY quote and then a long stream of hot air of how you already answered it and the answer is there and there it is and ANYways I'm just a troll so there's no point in engaging further, despite having already engaged me at great length, despite my supposed extensive history of being a troll - but a well thought out troll, worthy of response, except when they aren't...

But again, you're not going to answer that question. You're going to find something about ME to whine about, or go on a rant about how you already answered it, but strangely won't engage in the simple solution of repeating your answer even if you did already give it, or you're going to feign frustration and toss out some framing statement like "clearly there's no having a reasonable discussion with you", which is really just a guise to avoid answering the question that you don't want to answer.

Which was, in case you missed it, was:

If this particular group of people lacks personal responsibility, WHY is that the case?

Also, I clearly stated that I was aware of the possibility that you described, and omitted it on purpose, KNOWING that it was the reason you were going to propose, intentionally, so that it would be YOUR words, rather than MY words, so you couldn't say "I didn't say that", and I wouldn't be putting words into your mouth. Read slower.

Your final point is no more substantive than the rest. You're just saying I'm a troll because I'm trolling, and because I'm trolling I'm a troll. Surely even you recognize that as circular logic. Hey cool so you know how to look up a definition, and then characterize my behavior so it conveniently coincides with that definition you conveniently dug up on your own. It's almost as if I look that was cos you made me look that way, by your description of me.

OH NOES! He's using SACRASM! PETTY sarcasm! That's even WORSE, right? And ANTAGONISM! Like DISAGREEING. The horror! The humanity! The brutality of it all!

Just cos "sarcasmos" means "to rend or tear" doesn't mean I'm literally attacking you. They're just words. Words form a well-thought-out yet totally ignorable internet troll 8)

Back to my question...

If this particular group of people lacks personal responsibility, WHY is that the case?

Even if you did already answer it, since you're taking all the time to write so much regarding everything else, what's the harm in dedicating some small portion of that effort into restating your answer, clearly, so there's no doubts. Cs even if I am playing a game, surely after you DO answer me 2-3 times, everyone will be able to see for themselves that I'm just being a troll. Whereas even if you did answer me, your perceived reluctance to do so makes you look suspicious.

If this particular group of people lacks personal responsibility, WHY is that the case?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Daddy63 - Nice try - but if the supposed problem is that an individual lacks personal responsibility, and they lack it becuase it was TAKEN from them by FORCE, then it's not a lack of personal responsibility, since it was a matter of coercion or manipulation. It can't be both "they gave up the choice!" AND "the choice was TAKEN from them!"

Also, cool story, but not actually how that works. Makin a lot of claims that aren't even true. But, y'know, gotta bang that drum, "VoOtEr FrAwLd! voTuR FrOdD! VoWtEuR FrAaHd!! !"

Cos of course, the fact that they didn't find any MaSsIvE vOtEr FrAuD! just PROOVES HOW DEEP THE CONSPIRACY AND COVERUP GOES, MANNNNNNN...!

C'mon, it just sounds silly when people basically imply "a nation founded on racist ideals is still kinda racist, in ways that are so normalized that it doesn't look like racism" is a wacky radical insane idea - but "progressives have long been engaging in political tactics to nefariously steal the autonomy of minorities to seize power by way of their ultra secret ballot harvesting operation, and other deep state mass manipulation tactics, and using utopian lies of free everything for everyone" is somehow the more sane and reasonable option...

The idea that maybe the nation and culture that engaged in slavery and racism for 200+ years, hasn't quite gotten rid of all the remnants of slavery just yet, yeah, that's silly. The Tyrannical Left has a massive underground conspiracy movement designed to weaken america and it's citizens in the name of fascism because money, yeah, that sounds way more plausible...

It's certainly a creative rationalization.



Daddy63
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 389

12 Apr 2021, 1:13 pm

Spinning things with "Blah, Blah, Blah" to deflect from the hate gets us no where. It's tolerance of this fabricated divisiveness and the use of it for political gain that is so disgusting.

Until all lives truly matter and the civil rights of all are fully respected under the law and the law is applied without prejudice this will continue.



NoClearMind53
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 25 Mar 2018
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 229

12 Apr 2021, 1:58 pm

It makes it harder for people who don’t drive period. Also students. GOP knows these people mostly don’t vote for them, so thats how they tweak the numbers in their favor. VOTER fraud is tiny and statistically insignificant and doesn’t favor one party over the other. Making voting more difficult does because most GOP voters are retired boomers who don’t have a busy life and live in the suburbs or rural areas where there aren’t ridiculous lines to vote. Working poor people are PUNISHED by idiotic lines and restricted voting hours. GOP knows they only win making the system tilt in their favor. They know it or they wouldn’t be pushing the nonsense they do.



NoClearMind53
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 25 Mar 2018
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 229

12 Apr 2021, 2:23 pm

Daddy63 wrote:
Spinning things with "Blah, Blah, Blah" to deflect from the hate gets us no where. It's tolerance of this fabricated divisiveness and the use of it for political gain that is so disgusting.

Until all lives truly matter and the civil rights of all are fully respected under the law and the law is applied without prejudice this will continue.

The fact that voting is easier for rich retired suburban voters and harder for poor urban and younger students people tilts the system in favor of the GOP. GOP knows this and likes this. Pretending this is not the case is dishonest of them. Making voting more difficult for one group verses another is ELECTORAL FRAUD... i.e. cheating by those at the top to undermine the system. GOP cares about winning and winning alone. They cunningly tilt the system in their favor for their precious f*****g tax cuts while you eat that s**t up. Meanwhile you complain about voter fraud as if its something Democratic voters are more likely to do, which is insulting as hell. Keep at this and the country will f*****g explode.



Last edited by NoClearMind53 on 12 Apr 2021, 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Daddy63
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 389

12 Apr 2021, 3:45 pm

NoClearMind53 wrote:
The fact that voting is easier for rich retired suburban voters and harder for poor urban and younger students people.


That's gaslighting nonsense. Younger urban people have more access to public transportation and are generally in better health than older voters. There are many more polling locations in those urban areas as well making travel distances shorter. It's dramatically easier for them to vote compared to suburban and rural areas where by the way people of all skin colors reside as well.

Democrats run all of the election boards in those urban locations and make decisions on the numbers of polling locations. Notorious problem locations are Fulton County (Atlanta) and Wayne County (Detroit) where Democrats call the shots. You're not suggesting they aren't doing their jobs are you? Spinning it all to call everyone a racist or supremacist or what ever other fairytale makes it worse. Especially when it's Democrats running it all while calling everyone a racial supremacist.