2016 Presidential Race

[Salt USMC]

Not something but Trump's previous assertion that Obama was born in Kenya, yes, there cannot be a racist implication because he did not imply one race was superior than another or other races were inferior.

Your very narrow definition of "racism" smacks of pedantry. Within the common-use definition, it's most definitely racism.

 

[SpongeBob*24]

Going after The Presidents place of birth is no more racist then wondering what illness Hillary has is sexist.
Is that a better Parable......???

Enjoy your weekend....

Fun fact there are 8 Christians to every 1 muslim in Kenya....:-"

 

[Rapid]

Your very narrow definition of "racism" smacks of pedantry. Within the common-use definition, it's most definitely racism.

"Common use" is retarded, because so are commoners. Next thing you know, ShadowSpear will be discussing how there are more than two genders... because that's becoming a pretty common topic now, too. That doesn't make it right though, so that kind of argument is just mind-blowingly weak. A statement isn't any more correct whether it's believed by one fool or a hundred million fools. Erroneous thinking tends to be pretty "common".

Trump is prejudiced, even very prejudiced, but let's stick to the actual definitions of words. Trump has never come out or hinted at one race being superior to another. That's what racism is. None of this "racism = power + privilege" bullshit. If Liberals want to call that a thing, they should find a new word. Oh wait, that would mean creating something rather than taking something from other people...

Anyone that philosophically opposes Liberals will be labeled as misogynistic, racist, Islamophobic, homophobic, deplorable, or anything else they can think of. It's a new form of censorship, and it's pretty worrying.

 

[Brill]

Your very narrow definition of "racism" smacks of pedantry. Within the common-use definition, it's most definitely racism.

I linked to Webster's online dictionary!

Anyone that philosophically opposes Liberals will be labeled as misogynistic, racist, Islamophobic, homophobic, deplorable, or anything else they can think of. It's a new form of censorship, and it's pretty worrying.

Especially when website moderators subscribe to this philosophy.

 

[TLDR20]

Especially when website moderators subscribe to this philosophy.

You feel like you are being censored because we disagree?

 

[Deleted member 2517]

Should be willing to follow orders? What?

What foreign policy expertise does an 11B MOH winner have? Seriously.

Just because someone is a badass doesn't mean they have the chops to have an endorsement that means anything.

Generals on the other hand, have lots of experience in policy, them I am slightly more interested in. I thought way more came out in favor of Hillary?

It's like reading foreign policy on sofrep-
"So do you have any foreign policy experience or an advanced degree in international relations?

"No but I was a Sniper at 3/75 and shot a lot of people"

"Well shit you think you could give us a 4000 word breakdown on how to defeat ISIS?"

"Say no more fam"

 

[Brill]

You feel like you are being censored because we disagree?

No, I meant sites that actively participate in media (info-tainment) bias. Do you feel guilty about something?

Regarding common-use definition:

The Argument from Common Usage - Less Wrong

But once any empirical proposition is at stake, or any moral proposition, you can no longer appeal to common usage.

Sen Reid accused CNN polling of being biased towards Trump? Hilarious!

 

[Salt USMC]

"Common use" is retarded, because so are commoners. Next thing you know, ShadowSpear will be discussing how there are more than two genders... because that's becoming a pretty common topic now, too. That doesn't make it right though, so that kind of argument is just mind-blowingly weak. A statement isn't any more correct whether it's believed by one fool or a hundred million fools. Erroneous thinking tends to be pretty "common".

I've said this seemingly a million times, but English is a living language and meanings do change. Dictionaries Your pedantic appeal to the dictionary actually has a logical fallacy named, appropriately, Appeal to Definition. The problem with appealing to a narrow dictionary definition is that Dictionaries are static, reflect a certain definition at the time of writing, and have no pedagogical stake in the words contained within their pages.

I mean, come on. In the very next paragraph you're weaseling out of the argument by saying, "Yeah, Trump's words were bad I guess but TECHNICALLY IT'S NOT RACISM! Ha! Checkmate, libtards

Smug Obama approves

Trump is prejudiced, even very prejudiced, but let's stick to the actual definitions of words. Trump has never come out or hinted at one race being superior to another. That's what racism is. None of this "racism = power + privilege" bullshit. If Liberals want to call that a thing, they should find a new word. Oh wait, that would mean creating something rather than taking something from other people...

See, nobody here was equating 'racism' with the critical race theory version of the word. You took an argument that nobody has said, then attacked it. That has a name too: Strawman fallacy

Anyone that philosophically opposes Liberals will be labeled as misogynistic, racist, Islamophobic, homophobic, deplorable, or anything else they can think of. It's a new form of censorship, and it's pretty worrying.

This argument is the biggest bunch of crybaby horseshit to come out of this election. It's more sad than safe spaces, trigger warnings, and micro-aggressions combined.

Here's what the argument is:
P1: Build a wall
P2: That's racist and wrong
P1: No it's not

That's a very oversimplified example, but you get the idea. Nowhere in the exchange was P1's ability to speak censored, curtailed, or otherwise hampered.

Censorship looks like this:
P1: Build a wall
P2: That's racist. Also, I'm going to ban you
P1: Fuck

This article does a pretty good job of reconciling the myriad definitions of racism.

 

[Totentanz]

Sen Reid accused CNN polling of being biased towards Trump? Hilarious!

I think I've seen that video before...

 

[Rapid]

I've said this seemingly a million times, but English is a living language and meanings do change. Dictionaries Your pedantic appeal to the dictionary actually has a logical fallacy named, appropriately, Appeal to Definition. The problem with appealing to a narrow dictionary definition is that Dictionaries are static, reflect a certain definition at the time of writing, and have no pedagogical stake in the words contained within their pages.

Denied. Fortunately, I think most people still subscribe to the traditional definition of "racism"... despite the media's best attempts to twist things. So, no, it's not an appeal to definition, because the classic definition is still the one most people hold. That doesn't make it right though; what makes it right is that it's the original definition, and it STILL hasn't changed other than in Liberals' minds.

Gretchen, stop trying to make fetch happen! It's not going to happen!

See, nobody here was equating 'racism' with the critical race theory version of the word. You took an argument that nobody has said, then attacked it.

It doesn't have to be equated -- it becomes associated with it simply because of the two competing definitions. That's why Liberals want to appropriate the term. They want to equate prejudice with the far worse case of racism.

Sorry, Libtards, not today.

This argument is the biggest bunch of crybaby horseshit to come out of this election. It's more sad than safe spaces, trigger warnings, and micro-aggressions combined.

Here's what the argument is:
P1: Build a wall
P2: That's racist and wrong
P1: No it's not

That's a very oversimplified example, but you get the idea. Nowhere in the exchange was P1's ability to speak censored, curtailed, or otherwise hampered.

Censorship looks like this:
P1: Build a wall
P2: That's racist. Also, I'm going to ban you
P1: Fuck

This article does a pretty good job of reconciling the myriad definitions of racism.

Bull-fucking-shit.

1) "Nowhere in the exchange was P1's ability to speak censored, curtailed, or otherwise hampered."

Yes, it was, because like I said, appropriating the word "racism" makes an implied link with the standard definition of racism (one race is superior to another). And no one wants to be associated with that, so some people keep quiet out of fear of some crazy bitch calling them a "racist", even if it's in terms of some kind of nouveau definition. The point is, other people won't necessarily know that, so someone has every reason to worry about what other people will think of them if they get called a "racist".

2) "Nowhere in the exchange was P1's ability to speak censored, curtailed, or otherwise hampered. "

It was. Like I just said, people don't want to be associated with the term "racism"... because it will always be tied to the classic definition, which is far worse than 'any myriad' of new age definitions, or just plain prejudice.

This goes a lot further, too. A lot of people will keep their mouths shut just because they're afraid of losing their jobs or some shit like that, in the event that their employer gets tipped off that someone at their firm is holding "racist" beliefs, etc. There are a whole bunch of left wing trolls who have nothing better to do with their time than to "dox" people online (dig up their personal information) and report them to their employers... sometimes for good reasons, but OFTEN for petty and ridiculous shit.

Sorry, but it's safer for an employer to fire you for holding 'controversial opinions' than to stand up against a crowd of people with pitchforks. And that alone is one good reason why it's passive censorship.

 

[Etype]

Your very narrow definition of "racism" smacks of pedantry. Within the common-use definition, it's most definitely racism.

Sounds like micro-racism to me.

Wouldn't the pedantry fall upon the person who finds racism outside of the traditional definition of racism?

Micro-aggression and racism claims are now on shadow spear. There is no place safe on earth.

 

[AWP]

I guess an orange man picking on a black man or a brown man is technically racism, but this white man finds it funny all the same.

 

[CQB]

One thing is consistent from looking far across the sea concerning the Donald. He is so far the only one who has provided an answer and listened to those who have been left out in the cold by globalism (jobs gone OS). I'm looking at something here today which backs up where the orange guy is coming from. A Princeton study, what the authors call an epidemic of despair, is affecting of men and women 45-54 in on a downward trend worldwide, except in the US where it is increasing and getting steeper. The cause of death is drugs and alcohol OD, suicide, alcohol related chronic liver disease. The fewer years in education, the steeper the rise, plus the external factor of violence. Now the point for me is, has Trump identified this as a voting bloc or is it a genuine concern? It's an unknown for me but I'd hope he is genuine.

 

[Brill]

I guess an orange man picking on a black man or a brown man is technically racism, but this white man finds it funny all the same.

Your comment is racist because you clearly believe, by omission, that the yellow man cannot even contribute.

If we subscribe to common-usage definition, how in hell are President Obama's comments not racist? They are extremely exclusive.

Obama: Would be 'personal insult' to legacy if black voters don't back Clinton - CNNPolitics.com

 

[Red Flag 1]

I wonder if the latest terror attacks will bring more anti gun/knives/weapons rhetoric from Obama? Should outlaw pipes, and place unarmed guards at our dumpsters..

ETA: I'm just a little more pissed today than usual.

 

[Etype]

I wonder if the latest terror attacks will bring more anti gun/knives/weapons rhetoric from Obama? Should outlaw pipes, and place unarmed guards at our dumpsters..

ETA: I'm just a little more pissed today than usual.

2028, I'm running on an anti-pressure cooker platform.

At a minimum- I'm putting serial numbers on them, doing background checks on all who buy them, and closing the home shopping network loophole.

 

[RackMaster]

This is interesting, former Haitian Prime Minister talking to Trump about the Clintons attempting to bribe him and donations to Clinton Foundation for Haiti after 2010 not going to Haiti.

 

[Brill]

2028, I'm running on an anti-pressure cooker platform.

At a minimum- I'm putting serial numbers on them, doing background checks on all who buy them, and closing the home shopping network loophole.

That's prejudicial against crock pots!

This snippet inspires confidence and demonstrates command presence.

 

[poison]

That's prejudicial against crock pots!

Why haven't we banned high capacity crock pots?

 

[Brill]

Why haven't we banned high capacity crock pots?

Gotta feed the children!