Originally posted by Surtur
It would be a real shame for the person smashing the button yes.
Silent Master had a little tantrum in another thread because Blake did what he just did to me. He threatened to report him, and get him banned, so it seems to me, he would benefit from a taste of his own medicine. Were you going to say something about double-standards now?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Silent Master had a little tantrum in another thread because Blake did what he just did to me. He threatened to report him, and get him banned, so it seems to me, he would benefit from a taste of his own medicine. Were you going to say something about double-standards now?
Yes, I will say something about double standards now:
Not only do you sad souls have double standards when it comes to pushing unverified news, you have them when it comes to who can use what terminology.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Silent Master had a little tantrum in another thread because Blake did what he just did to me. He threatened to report him, and get him banned, so it seems to me, he would benefit from a taste of his own medicine. Were you going to say something about double-standards now?
Reported.
I smashed that report button faster than weaboos smashed the like and subscribe buttons on a new Twitch Thot's scantily clad live-stream.
The whole Supreme Court is messed up, and needs reform. I do hope the Democrats pack the court, and that this action leads to a bipartisan reform of the court, including sensible things like term limits, and perhaps even multiple chambers of the court. There’s a lot better ways to organize the highest court of a state.
Really the worst things about it is that it is a deeply pro-elites body that while people argue about social issues will constantly vote to lessen the rights of ordinary Americans.
Originally posted by Artol
The whole Supreme Court is messed up, and needs reform. I do hope the Democrats pack the court, and that this action leads to a bipartisan reform of the court, including sensible things like term limits, and perhaps even multiple chambers of the court. There’s a lot better ways to organize the highest court of a state.Really the worst things about it is that it is a deeply pro-elites body that while people argue about social issues will constantly vote to lessen the rights of ordinary Americans.
This is intentional. Make everything a social issue, so no one thinks about class.
Originally posted by cdtm
This is intentional. Make everything a social issue, so no one thinks about class.
Yes, it is. It works very well for both Democrats and Republicans, and goes back to the founding of the United States. The elites squabble over control and use social issues (that are important for sure) to obfuscate the real issue that no matter which of them wins (liberals or conservatives), the fundamental subjugation of 90% of the American citizenry remains in place.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There are more than enough posts in this thread to establish the context for this for any reasonable person. You are just being deliberately obtuse, because you were proved wrong. And instead of accepting that you were not sufficiently knoweldgedable about the history and context that everyone subsequently provided for you, you are doubling-down, so you do not have to admit it. No one is interested in convincing someone who does not want to be convinced.
I don’t see where you refuted my points. You simply handwaving them and going “you’re wrong” does not make it so.
And while I do admit I WAS unaware of this “context and history” at the start of this discussion, you may want to scroll back a few pages as I never disputed the “existence” of such at any point of the discussion. And began my points around after these so-called “contexts and history” was provided to the thread (not to me directly, but the thread in general). Meaning these “context/history” never proved me wrong as I built my points on top of the “context/history” not in the absence of such.
My main dispute has always been the assignment of intent for malice thru identity (religion/race/political affiliation) which I find very bigoted and hypocritical. Not to mention would never be upheld in any court.
So I will repeat my points for your convenience:
1) While the “history and context” of the word may “exist” (subjective as it is), you have not been proven it to be a well known established fact.
For something as subjective as “offensive”, it has to be existent AND established and well known before you can assign intent as intent implies prior knowledge of these “contexts and history” your are talking about. At no point did you establish ACB had knowledge much less intent (and she has very little motive to do so during a freakin SC hearing).
2) In the absence of intent, you are assigning guilt due to an obscure/poorly known and highly subjective “context” of a well-used and benign word (proof: your own political candidate who is supposed to be the champion of your “causes” uses it in the exact same context as the person you are assigning guilt to) solely due to a person’s identity and don’t even care whether or not the person makes a clarification. Again, very bigoted/prejudiced way of looking at things.
Far as I can see, you just want her to be guilty of something because you don’t like her religion and poilitical affiliation.
You accuse me of “doubling down” but it doesn’t even seem like you’re reading my posts or are even aware what my posts are about...
Originally posted by Artol
Yes, it is. It works very well for both Democrats and Republicans, and goes back to the founding of the United States. The elites squabble over control and use social issues (that are important for sure) to obfuscate the real issue that no matter which of them wins (liberals or conservatives), the fundamental subjugation of 90% of the American citizenry remains in place.
Oh, hey, we actually have data to back up what you're saying.
Actual, real, data!!!
Your position is based on facts, not feelings and desire. 🙂
Originally posted by Artol
The whole Supreme Court is messed up, and needs reform. I do hope the Democrats pack the court, and that this action leads to a bipartisan reform of the court, including sensible things like term limits, and perhaps even multiple chambers of the court. There’s a lot better ways to organize the highest court of a state.Really the worst things about it is that it is a deeply pro-elites body that while people argue about social issues will constantly vote to lessen the rights of ordinary Americans.
If the democrats pack the courts it will not lead to positive change. All that will happen is that they forfeit the right to complain when the republicans pack the courts at the next opportunity they have(which they will if dems go this route).
Originally posted by Surtur
If the democrats pack the courts it will not lead to positive change. All that will happen is that they forfeit the right to complain when the republicans pack the courts at the next opportunity they have(which they will if dems go this route).
I think it would be better for the US Democracy if there was a cycle of court packing rather than the system they have now, but I'm still hopeful for real, meaningful reform.