More Race Hysteria from SJW's

[bennyboy]

A shoelace, if it's just a shoelace, isn't racist.  It's a string used for cinching up shoes.  

See how well it works on you?  The story in the op is alt right fodder..but what jumps out is this.  Why did the student think it was a noose?  Because it was packaged in such a way that it looked like a noose ( a mystifying marketing decision but as someone who loves a little para cord I understand).  

We are a country, Benny...that still hangs nooses.  

If you see something that looks like a noose here.....there's a good chance that this is -exactly- what it is.

Second, being against race-politics dogma is not the same as being against a race.  Stupid shit is stupid-- you don't have to endorse or support stupid shit just because it's stupid shit done by people with your political leanings.  Nor does being against stupid shit mean you disagree with the underlying politics.

The alt right -aren't- against race based politics.  They're defined by it.  You're repeating their propaganda as a person who...in my opinion, is completely against that sort of shit.  At some point you have to ask yourself how that happened.

You seem to think that my dislike of SJW culture implies I support the right.  I'm not sitting around all day watching Fox and Friends reruns, dude-- I hate them too.

[Amarok]

You seem to think that my dislike of SJW culture implies I support the right.  I'm not sitting around all day watching Fox and Friends reruns, dude-- I hate them too.

You don't need to be one of them to be a dupe for them

[The Grand Nudger]

You seem to think that my dislike of SJW culture implies I support the right. 

I don't.  

I'm not sitting around all day watching Fox and Friends reruns, dude-- I hate them too.

-and yet somehow you tow their lines.  Again, that had to have happened somehow.

[bennyboy]

You seem to think that my dislike of SJW culture implies I support the right.  I'm not sitting around all day watching Fox and Friends reruns, dude-- I hate them too.

You don't need to be one of them to be a dupe for them

I'm not.  I've been in situations myself where some douche bag decided he's gotta make himself a special snowflake by going off on some issue and making a scene.  I've seen myself that when it's issues of race, gender equality, and so on, people are very uncomfortable with the idea of telling the douche to shut the fuck up.

I actually first heard the term Social Justice Warrior on Southpark, and the principal represented a type of person that I've seen plenty of times on my own.  Whether SJW was first coined at Fox or among the right-wing nutjobs doesn't change the fact that I fucking hate that guy, and that the word is a suitable term.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What falsehood does the OP represent, actually?  Do you dispute that those things happened?

The falsehood is not in his reporting the events, but in the character and significance he assigns to those events as "representative" in order to impugn the vast majority of folks who, while detesting the injustices in our country, do not engage in such triviality.

In assigning that contextual meaning, he is attempting to trivialize all such complaints, no matter their context.


 

Do you think Neo's criticism of them should be disregarded because of who you think Neo is?

I look askance at the reportage and views of known cherry-pickers. This thread itself, amongst others he has posted, demonstrates his urge to select facts based on how they support his own outlook.

[bennyboy]

I'm not sitting around all day watching Fox and Friends reruns, dude-- I hate them too.

-and yet somehow you tow their lines.  Again, that had to have happened somehow.

Just because some of my ideas cross-section with theirs doesn't mean I identify them, or that their propaganda media machine has anything to do with the existence of my own views. It is my own experiences with people that make me dislike the condescending hypocrisy and dogmatization I see; if those people are also annoying to the alt-right, then fine: to that degree, I share views with the alt-right. I'll bet some of them also own beagles and like strawberry cake, so who knows how deep I am into this shit already, hey?

[Amarok]

You don't need to be one of them to be a dupe for them

I'm not.  I've been in situations myself where some douche bag decided he's gotta make himself a special snowflake by going off on some issue and making a scene.  I've seen myself that when it's issues of race, gender equality, and so on, people are very uncomfortable with the idea of telling the douche to shut the fuck up.

I actually first heard the term Social Justice Warrior on Southpark, and the principal represented a type of person that I've seen plenty of times on my own.  Whether SJW was first coined at Fox or among the right-wing nutjobs doesn't change the fact that I fucking hate that guy, and that the word is a suitable term.

You done a poor showing your not their dupe.

---

Just because some of my ideas cross-section with theirs doesn't mean I identify them, or that their propaganda media machine has anything to do with the existence of my own views. It is my own experiences with people that make me dislike the condescending hypocrisy and dogmatization I see; if those people are also annoying to the alt-right, then fine: to that degree, I share views with the alt-right. I'll bet some of them also own beagles and like strawberry cake, so who knows how deep I am into this shit already, hey?

Keep towing the line

[The Grand Nudger]

-and yet somehow you tow their lines.  Again, that had to have happened somehow.

Just because some of my ideas cross-section with theirs doesn't mean I identify them, or that their propaganda media machine has anything to do with the existence of my own views.  It is my own experiences with people that make me dislike the condescending hypocrisy and dogmatization I see; if those people are also annoying to the alt-right, then fine: to that degree, I share views with the alt-right.  I'll bet some of them also own beagles and like strawberry cake, so who knows how deep I am into this shit already, hey?

I'm not worried about "some of your ideas" cross sectioning.  Some of mine do too.  Some of everyones ideas cross section with everyone elses..we can;t all disagree on everything.  I;m talking specifically about the one thing, the unmistakable trace of your having swallowed a specific party line of theirs for reasons that..when you explain them, you explain the same way, and that are entirely and completely wrong for the same reasons not having a thing to do with party allegiance or politics.

[bennyboy]

What falsehood does the OP represent, actually?  Do you dispute that those things happened?

The falsehood is not in his reporting the events, but in the character and significance he assigns to those events as "representative" in order to impugn the cast majority of folks who, while detesting the injustices in our country, do not engage in such triviality.

In assigning that contextual meanin, he is attempting to trivialize all such complaints, no matter their context.

I think I'll let Neo field this one. Does he in fact believe that black people have no legitimate complaints?

[Thumpalumpacus]

So you're saying that Rhode Island and Cali have equitable delegations in the EC?

Of course not. I'm saying that RI has greater per capita representation in the EC than CA.

Don't you get this?

Of course I get that. But the EC doesn't work on a per capita basis. It works on raw numbers -- 271 votes gets you in.

California has 55 EC votes. Rhode Island has 4. Guess which state has more sway?

That's the point I'm making to A Theist, and apparently to you now. Eliminating the EC will not block those big states from exerting pull on the process, and indeed it will also make every vote mean more, no matter which state they're in, because without winner-take-all, which is the case in 48 of the fifty states, all votes for a candidate will be counted even if they originate in a state with the opponent garnering more votes.

Suppose that a large state has 50 representatives. It gets 52 electors - 50 representatives plus 2 senators.

Now suppose that ten small states have an aggregate of 50 representatives (i.e. aggregate population is the same as the large state). They would have 70 aggregate electors - 50 representatives plus (10 X 2) senators.

Ah, but because those states are broken up into various polities, it's not really winner-take-all for that grouping, is it?

And if they did happen to vote monolithically, do you think it's right for some votes to carry more heft than others?