Originally posted by Surtur
I love how triggered you are. Also, let us use your party example. So if I understand correctly: If whites throw a whites only party it's not racial discrimination?
just the non-retort dodge i expected. coward. keep ignoring points and pretending you won the argument, since it's your only joy in your pathetic life. (besides drugs and fraud)
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you clearly don't even know what "enforced" means, so wtf is the point of continuing this conversation?
What do you feel enforced means? This is a serious question, because in the past I've seen stories where blacks wanted to have a blacks only dorm room at a certain college. People called this a form of segregation. I would assume if there were a blacks only dorm and a white person showed up to try to get in they would be turned away.
Likewise, I expect if whites try to show up to this ceremony people would not just go "meh, it's cool come on in". They would most likely turn them away.
So what else does enforced mean, short of having police there to force this?
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i don't feel definitions. i look them up in a dictionary. give it a try for once, you dumb shit.
Okay so looking it up we get:
"caused by necessity or force; compulsory."
If a white person shows up to the ceremony, refuses to leave, and is physically removed...isn't that then by definition, enforcing?
Unless you truly believe they would just let the white person stay?
Originally posted by Surtur
Okay so looking it up we get:"caused by necessity or force; compulsory."
If a white person shows up to the ceremony, refuses to leave, and is physically removed...isn't that then by definition, enforcing?
Unless you truly believe they would just let the white person stay?
if you need to strip the term of all historical context and true meaning, then yes. if the person was physically removed (or told to leave), then technically that would be segregation. the same bullshit semantics game would apply if i demanded that you remove all the brown m&m's from my snack bowl. now let's begin the mental gymnastics to equate this to jim crow laws.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg[QUOTE=16198392]Originally posted by NemeBro
So tell me my friend, who in this thread proposed any of these points of view? mmm
the usual culprit
[/QUOTE]
Come on, you guys, he's a liberal!
It is reverse discrimination if white people cannot have a whites-only ceremony, and men cannot opt out of parenthood!
Fairness is not equity, it is ignoring context and treating relevantly dissimilar things exactly the same!
😱
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
if you need to strip the term of all historical context and true meaning, then yes. if the person was physically removed (or told to leave), then technically that would be segregation. the same bullshit semantics game would apply if i demanded that you remove all the brown m&m's from my snack bowl. now let's begin the mental gymnastics to equate this to jim crow laws.
*facepalm*
I asked you what you feel the word meant. You say you don't "feel" definitions you look them up in the dictionary. I then give you the actual definition and you respond back that I am stripping the term of all historical context and "true meaning". Which sounds like the opposite of merely "going by the dictionary".
Originally posted by Surtur
*facepalm*I asked you what you feel the word meant. You say you don't "feel" definitions you look them up in the dictionary. I then give you the actual definition and you respond back that I am stripping the term of all historical context and "true meaning". Which sounds like the opposite of merely "going by the dictionary".
repeating your dogshit semantics game will not make it true.
blacks-only party is not even remotely equivalent to the motive behind jim crow laws.
or as adam snarked:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Fairness is not equity, it is ignoring context and treating relevantly dissimilar things exactly the same!😱
Originally posted by Adam_PoECome on, you guys, he's a liberal!
It is reverse discrimination if white people cannot have a whites-only ceremony, and men cannot opt out of parenthood!
Fairness is not equity, it is ignoring context and treating relevantly dissimilar things exactly the same!
😱
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
repeating your dogshit semantics game will not make it true.blacks-only party is not even remotely equivalent to the motive behind jim crow laws.
This is why you need to stop calling others dumb and making comments like "don't do drugs". You are either dumb, on drugs, or both since you do not seem to recall things you say. Let us recap:
I ask you what you feel the word enforced means. You respond smugly with how you don't "feel" words mean anything, you look them up in the dictionary.
I then give you the definition of the word and ask if it would be enforced segregation if the blacks removed a white who had tried to attend the party. You then come back with how I'm stripping the word of it's context and ignoring it's "true meaning". You then dig the hole deeper by saying I am playing "bullshit semantic games", but I am just going by what you said: you go by the dictionary. Then someone else uses the dictionary definition and suddenly it is semantics.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i'd love to hear a reply to my point. or was your intention to simply point out the over-simplistic phrasing of my first post and flake off?
This is something I can agree to disagree with you on because even if I disagree I don't find the stance you're currently holding ideologically regressive and racist.
I think this is getting ridiculous. It's not just the behavior of the snowflakes, it is the people who give in to their demands or who run away and resign rather than deal with it.
Duke professor resigns after being disciplined for criticizing ‘totalitarian’ anti-racism training
“I exhort you not to attend this training,” Griffiths wrote on Feb. 6, according to Dreher. “Don’t lay [sic] waste your time by doing so. It’ll be, I predict with confidence, intellectually flaccid: there’ll be bromides, clichés, and amen-corner rah-rahs in plenty.
“When (if) it gets beyond that, its illiberal roots and totalitarian tendencies will show,” he continued. “Events of this sort are definitively anti-intellectual.”
The dean of the school gave a statement about how racism, sexism, and bigotry would not be tolerated. I do not see any of those things in what the professor said.
Then we have something like this:
Title IX is now used for personal vendettas
That is messed up, so I will end on a more humorous note, keep in mind as of right now they do not know who posted these signs:
Posters at college restrooms ask students about their ‘pee privilege’
"The posters hung at Northern Arizona University, according to Campus Reform, ask students if they have “pee privilege,” a reference to the ongoing transgender bathroom debate.
“The ability to use a restroom without fear or concern for your own safety constitutes pee privilege,” one sign states, and, “the ability to undoubtedly know which bathroom to pick is a characteristic of pee privilege.”
😆
Originally posted by NemeBro
Well that much is technically true, since you never actually had an argument. mmm
Nor did you unless....pop quiz! Whites show up at the all blacks ceremony. They refuse to leave: are they removed? Or allowed to stay?
Allowed to stay, right? Because it's not enforced segregation, and remember we go by the dictionary definition of "enforced" bro. So you can't even skate by on saying you just mean enforcement by the law. Sucks, but I don't make the rules.