They Should Just Make Being Poor and a CheapAss a Crime Already

Did you (doh) figure out (find an answer) why (purpose) you called me a racist (something you call a person when you cant win an argument)?
o-KFC-DOUBLE-DOWN-facebook.jpg


Lemme know when you explain why my statements about tax codes are opinion and not fact, then I'll be more than happy to explain why you're an intellectually dishonest hack that doesn't have the balls to stand behind their insults...again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You said it.
You forgot to call me a camel jockey and towel head.

inb4 datz not racialist.

To all you gutless CAG cons, just once, I'd like to see you spineless twerps call out one of your own when they make blatantly racist comments. I've been on Vs. for a long time and never have I once seen some of you shittier shitheads make a fucking peep. You're all pathetic.

inb4 libtards r da REALZ racizts
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't get it. Is calling DD "pretentious" supposed to be super-secret-dog-whistle language for racism? Does anyone even know what race DD is, as he often points out we don't know his race whenever it comes up?

Oh, look. DD's gone and made yet another topic about him and about racism.
 
I don't get it. Is calling DD "pretentious" supposed to be super-secret-dog-whistle language for racism? Does anyone even know what race DD is, as he often points out we don't know his race whenever it comes up?

Oh, look. DD's gone and made yet another topic about him and about racism.
Yea he brings up racism enough that he has to be a minority of some type.

Even in the Casey Kassem is dead thread he posted the first reply and guess what he brought up?

Race.

 
Yea he brings up racism enough that he has to be a minority of some type.

Even in the Casey Kassem is dead thread he posted the first reply and guess what he brought up?

Race.
I love how tangentially referring to a racist incident is WORSE THAN ACTUALLY USING RACIAL EPITHETS. Oh and only non-whites bring up race because "reasons."<insert POV from a racist fuck...in case you haven't gotten the clue, that would be you>
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcJ31-D_Iwk
Maybe I am racist, all the Arabs in this video look the same to me. ;)

As far as calling someone out, Doh, is a video game political chat forum post really gonna change a person's mind? I just ignore truly ignorant racists comments. You cry wolf wayyyy too much when it comes to thinking that you know everyone's reasoning for thinking the way they do....(they are racists!.... :roll: ) Dislike Obama's policies...racist...wanna change the tax system....racist....wanna reform welfare....racist...against minimum wage....racist...And I do believe that we had the whole ACTUAL definition of the word racist debate, right? You made up your own definition if I recall correctly, dismissing the whole genetic component. Maybe that was someone else. I can't remember. Apologies if that wasn't you....

As far a the tax code insults you hurled at me, I understand everything you claimed I didn't, I stand up for not taking 39.6% of any amount of anyone's money...ever. Just because it doesn't affect me directly, doesn't mean it is not fair and absurd in my opinion. Bob pointed out how the estate tax double dips. Do you defend it? Do you really believe that taxes are consumption/benefit based? A millionaire really uses hundreds of thousands more of gov't resources than I do, or a welfare recipient? Maybe some do, shipping moguls or some such industry( but aren't taxes in place on specific industries like these already?), but many do not. How would you change the tax system? Please be specific as possible. I also wonder if you are for open borders and immigration while telling me I can not expect people on welfare to work due to a lack of jobs. Please reply. Thanks.

 
Maybe I am racist, all the Arabs in this video look the same to me. ;)

As far as calling someone out, Doh, is a video game political chat forum post really gonna change a person's mind? I just ignore truly ignorant racists comments. You cry wolf wayyyy too much when it comes to thinking that you know everyone's reasoning for thinking the way they do....(they are racists!.... :roll: ) Dislike Obama's policies...racist...wanna change the tax system....racist....wanna reform welfare....racist...against minimum wage....racist...And I do believe that we had the whole ACTUAL definition of the word racist debate, right? You made up your own definition if I recall correctly, dismissing the whole genetic component. Maybe that was someone else. I can't remember. Apologies if that wasn't you....
Let's just say that I've changed more than a few minds when it comes to racism on CAG. Race is based on genetics huh? I guess the theory behind caucazoids, mongoloids, and negroids is correct then!

As far a the tax code insults you hurled at me, I understand everything you claimed I didn't, I stand up for not taking 39.6% of any amount of anyone's money...ever. Just because it doesn't affect me directly, doesn't mean it is not fair and absurd in my opinion. Bob pointed out how the estate tax double dips. Do you defend it? Do you really believe that taxes are consumption/benefit based? A millionaire really uses hundreds of thousands more of gov't resources than I do, or a welfare recipient? Maybe some do, shipping moguls or some such industry( but aren't taxes in place on specific industries like these already?), but many do not. How would you change the tax system? Please be specific as possible. I also wonder if you are for open borders and immigration while telling me I can not expect people on welfare to work due to a lack of jobs. Please reply. Thanks.
-NO ONE pays 39.6%.

-Inherited capital and assets are considered income with specialized tax shelters. I'd trust bobby to run a cash register at wallyworld, but he doesn't have a goddamn clue about anything except how to troll vs. If you paid attention to what nasum told you about taxes, you'd know bullshit was being smeared all over your face when someone was telling you it was anti-aging cream. Is it double dipping when you have to pay tax on winning Mega-ball?

-The ability to make those millions is dependent on a lot of infrastructure and regulatory bodies that create a system to make it possible. Apple doesn't make billions of dollars solely on the fact that it makes shitty shiny products. Even without physical infrastructure, you have laws and agencies that protect it from copyright infringement, patent violations, and straight up killing their domestic workforce. It's a little more complicated than just using roads. That's a simple example to highlight a simple concept that apparently, some people are too simple to understand. Not my problem.

So you either used ideological rhetoric to purposely distort the concepts you're bringing up or you outright have no fucking clue about what you're attempting to talk about. Which is it because you're fucking up the basics. Yeah, I'm totally going to write a 1000+ word treatise to get trolled by the vs. clowns. In case you're wondering, yes, I include you in that group.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's just say that I've changed more than a few minds when it comes to racism on CAG. Race is based on genetics huh? I guess the theory behind caucazoids, mongoloids, and negroids is correct then!


-NO ONE pays 39.6%.

-Inherited capital and assets are considered income with specialized tax shelters. I'd trust bobby to run a cash register at wallyworld, but he doesn't have a goddamn clue about anything except how to troll vs. If you paid attention to what nasum told you about taxes, you'd know bullshit was being smeared all over your face when someone was telling you it was anti-aging cream. Is it double dipping when you have to pay tax on winning Mega-ball?

-The ability to make those millions is dependent on a lot of infrastructure and regulatory bodies that create a system to make it possible. Apple doesn't make billions of dollars solely on the fact that it makes shitty shiny products. Even without physical infrastructure, you have laws and agencies that protect it from copyright infringement, patent violations, and straight up killing their domestic workforce. It's a little more complicated than just using roads. That's a simple example to highlight a simple concept that apparently, some people are too simple to understand. Not my problem.

So you either used ideological rhetoric to purposely distort the concepts you're bringing up or you outright have no fucking clue about what you're attempting to talk about. Which is it because you're fucking up the basics. Yeah, I'm totally going to write a 1000+ word treatise to get trolled by the vs. clowns. In case you're wondering, yes, I include you in that group.
race
2 /reɪs/ Show Spelled [reys] Show IPA

noun
1.
a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.

2.
a population so related.

3.
Anthropology .
a.
(no longer in technical use) any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics.

b.
an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.

c.
a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.



4.
a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.

5.
any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race

So, uh, yeah, genetics are a component of race.

NO ONE pays 39.6%? Are you sure? I myself think 25% is outrageous. I mean 3 months worth of work to just pay the federal gov't seems extreme. I will ask again, would you change our current system? How? Paying taxes on lottery winnings (initial income) and paying inheritance tax on money THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED BEFORE is different. Once I pay the tax, I should be able to do what I want with the money. Simple, eh?

Any response on the immigration/job shortage question?

I like clowns, and you, sir, are my head clown. :wave:


 
Let's just say that I've changed more than a few minds when it comes to racism on CAG. Race is based on genetics huh? I guess the theory behind caucazoids, mongoloids, and negroids is correct then!
Wait, is there some debate that a person's race is not genetically determined? Please fill me in, I have not heard about this.

 
Wait, is there some debate that a person's race is not genetically determined? Please fill me in, I have not heard about this.
No but there has been debates in which our resident race expert has proclaimed that if you're white you're automatically racist because you're automatically born into power and privileged. The same expert has said that it is impossible for any minority to be racist because they don't universally hold enough wealth or power or the numbers to effectively be racist.

 
No but there has been debates in which our resident race expert has proclaimed that if you're white you're automatically racist because you're automatically born into power and privileged. The same expert has said that it is impossible for any minority to be racist because they don't universally hold enough wealth or power or the numbers to effectively be racist.
Well according to pillsbury, I am a huge racist. I am not even white!

 
No but there has been debates in which our resident race expert has proclaimed that if you're white you're automatically racist because you're automatically born into power and privileged. The same expert has said that it is impossible for any minority to be racist because they don't universally hold enough wealth or power or the numbers to effectively be racist.
OK, I read about that idea. I completely disagreed with it since I understand the definition of the word "racist".

 
African slaves were racist if they hate whites because whites enslaved them. In matter of fact, those African slaves were probably MORE racist! LOGIC! :roll:

Oh and people that are considered white today were ALWAYS considered white.

scan00012.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name="egofed" post="11884056" timestamp="1404148451"]Maybe I am racist, all the Arabs in this video look the same to me. ;)[/quote]

Lol. He is not an Arab and even dont speak arabic. instead he speaks hindi(an indian language), maybe he is from pakistan or india.

Source: I've arab and indian friends
 
Lol. He is not an Arab and even dont speak arabic. instead he speaks hindi(an indian language), maybe he is from pakistan or india. Source: I've arab and indian friends
You're talking to people that can't be assed to distinguish between Sikh and Muslim cause they think it's the same thing. The way they look is enough to group them in the same classification because "genetics" as if phenotypes are the sole criteria and there are never variations that overlap.

I'd expect someone like GBAstar to understand the difference, but hey, libruls are da REAL RACISTZ. Whites look white, black people look black, anyone that looks like they could be both are Mexicans, anyone that doesn't look like either are Chinamen. Cause logic...errr...I mean "common" sense!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're talking to people that can't be assed to distinguish between Sikh and Muslim cause they think it's the same thing. The way they look is enough to group them in the same classification because "genetics" as if phenotypes are the sole criteria and there are never variations that overlap.

I'd expect someone like GBAstar to understand the difference, but hey, libruls are da REAL RACISTZ. Whites look white, black people look black, anyone that looks like they could be both are Mexicans, anyone that doesn't look like either are Chinamen. Cause logic...errr...I mean "common" sense!
Yet it's the liberals who insist on lumping together all "Asians" in the U.S. when there are tremendous historical animosities that each nationality are forced to set aside when they're pushed into that group... same for "Hispanics" (although I admit I am much less versed in their historical feuds).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yet it's the liberals who insist on lumping together all "Asians" in the U.S. when there are tremendous historical animosities that each nationality are forced to set aside when they're pushed into that group... same for "Hispanics" (although I admit I am much less versed in their historical feuds).
LOLZ...yeah, tell me more about the state of "Asian" affairs in the US and their intra-ethnic animosity towards each other that's stoked by "liberal" grouping. I'm absolutely dying to read about what you have to say about it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LOLZ...define what makes someone a particular race then, smartie pants.
Why? Can you can tell me how a single person's definition of race on a video game deals website is relevant to the discussion of the idea that only the people in power can be racist?

 
Why? Can you can tell me how a single person's definition of race on a video game deals website is relevant to the discussion of the idea that only the people in power can be racist?
If you know what racism is, surely you can define what a "race" is. Can't have racism without race, so define it. You're the one that brought it up.
 
If you know what racism is, surely you can define what a "race" is. Can't have racism without race, so define it. You're the one that brought it up.
Actually your are the one who keeps bringing up race into these threads. Perhaps then you can explain to us how any of us are racist. Please, amuse me.

 
If you know what racism is, surely you can define what a "race" is. Can't have racism without race, so define it. You're the one that brought it up.
So, am I to understand from your response that you can't or won't tell me how it is relevant to the discussion? If you cannot do this, then we are at an impasse.

 
So, am I to understand from your response that you can't or won't tell me how it is relevant to the discussion? If you cannot do this, then we are at an impasse.
You made the assertion that racism is exclusive of institutional power because you "understand the definition of the word "racist."

If you can't define what "race" is, then how can you know what "racism" is? And if you don't know what "racism" is, how can you assert that it's not a function of institutional power? With your "reasoning," an African slave is racist if they hate all whites because they were the slavers. Or do you share the sentiment that black people were better off under slavery than in Africa and should be thankful for being taken out of that hellhole?
 
You made the assertion that racism is exclusive of institutional power because you "understand the definition of the word "racist."
Yes I did make that assertion.

Here is the definition copied from the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2. racial prejudice or discrimination

I see no mention of institutional power, do you?

Perhaps you can provide me with the name of the dictionary that provides the definition of racism that you agree with, the one that mentions institutional power.

If you can't define what "race" is, then how can you know what "racism" is? And if you don't know what "racism" is, how can you assert that it's not a function of institutional power? With your "reasoning," an African slave is racist if they hate all whites because they were the slavers. Or do you share the sentiment that black people were better off under slavery than in Africa and should be thankful for being taken out of that hellhole?
The 3rd word of the 1st sentence in the paragraph should read won't, not can't

So can you explain how would an African slave that hates all whites not be racist? Yes, by my reasoning the slave you mention is indeed racist since it fits with the actual definition of the word (see #2 above). I think we could all understand a slave responding in this way, but this is in no way a justification for the attitude. I believe this is where we actually disagree. If I am correct, then I believe that there is no point in continuing a discussion on the matter.

I will not respond to your final question since it is clearly a straw man fallacy and I never stated anything remotely similar. I will thank you to keep any arguments logical or, at the very least, not fallacious.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes I did make that assertion.
Which, according to your "logic," means that only individuals can be racist and not social institutions created by them. Do you assert that this is true too?







Here is the definition copied from the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

[background=#ffffff]1. a belief that [/size][/background]
race[background=#ffffff] is the primary [/size][/background]determinant[background=#ffffff] of human traits and capacities and that [/size][/background]racial[background=#ffffff] differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race[/size][/background]

[background=#ffffff]2. racial [/size][/background]prejudice[background=#ffffff] or discrimination[/size][/background]

I see no mention of institutional power, do you?

Perhaps you can provide me with the name of the dictionary that provides the definition of racism that you agree with, the one that mentions institutional power.
Lolz...yeah, dictionaries are the final words on a complex subject such as racism. Pedants like you are so cute. It's not like definitions ever change or woefully superficial when it comes to complex concepts, right?







The 3rd word of the 1st sentence in the paragraph should read won't, not can't
That's because you know that your assertion will fall apart.







So can you explain how would an African slave that hates all whites not be racist? Yes, by my reasoning the slave you mention is indeed racist since it fits with the actual definition of the word (see #2 above). I think we could all understand a slave responding in this way, but this is in no way a justification for the attitude. I believe this is where we actually disagree. If I am correct, then I believe that there is no point in continuing a discussion on the matter.
If both are racist, then racism would be irrelevant to the equation and there'd be white chattel slavery since we've established that only individuals can be racist. I guess the Confederate States of America couldn't be racist either because racism meant something different back then and institutions can't be racist.




I will not respond to your final question since it is clearly a straw man fallacy and I never stated anything remotely similar. I will thank you to keep any arguments logical or, at the very least, not fallacious.
You're the only one allowed to make absurd comments? I'm just trying to pick your brain. Now tell me, did you stop beating your wife? Serious question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Systems and laws can have implications that affect one race more adversely than another - I'm not sure anyone has ever argued against that point. Which is why it's completely unsurprising that DD is totally strawmanning this thread by trying to make that claim.

And yet, DD has still NEVER answered anyone who has asked - is a law that has a disproportionate adverse effect on white people vs. minorities a racist law? And he won't ever answer it - because answering "yes" would destroy everything he holds dear, while answering "no" would be blatantly hypocritical.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Which, according to your "logic," means that only individuals can be racist and not social institutions created by them. Do you assert that this is true too?

Lolz...yeah, dictionaries are the final words on a complex subject such as racism. Pedants like you are so cute. It's not like definitions ever change or woefully superficial when it comes to complex concepts, right?

That's because you know that your assertion will fall apart.

If both are racist, then racism would be irrelevant to the equation and there'd be white chattel slavery since we've established that only individuals can be racist. I guess the Confederate States of America couldn't be racist either because racism meant something different back then and institutions can't be racist.

You're the only one allowed to make absurd comments? I'm just trying to pick your brain. Now tell me, did you stop beating your wife? Serious question.
OK, I am a pedant because I use a dictionary when attempting to define a word. What do you use to define the meaning of words? If we can't agree that a dictionary is the source you look at to define the meaning of a word, I don't suppose there is any point to this discussion.

If there is no common ground about the use or meaning of words, they are useless. So there you have it, this discussion is indeed pointless.

 
OK, I am a pedant because I use a dictionary when attempting to define a word. What do you use to define the meaning of words? If we can't agree that a dictionary is the source you look at to define the meaning of a word, I don't suppose there is any point to this discussion.

If there is no common ground about the use or meaning of words, they are useless. So there you have it, this discussion is indeed pointless.
If you looked up the definition of "penis" in a dictionary, would you know everything there is to know about a penis? If I called you a dickhead, am I literally calling you a glans penis or am I implying something else? Or is context required to take it as an insult or not?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And yet, DD has still NEVER answered anyone who has asked - is a law that has a disproportionate adverse effect on white people vs. minorities a racist law? And he won't ever answer it - because answering "yes" would destroy everything he holds dear, while answering "no" would be blatantly hypocritical.
I had asked a long time ago if on a microscopic level, if a neighborhood, or even city where the majority power was controlled by blacks (i.e. Baltimore; 60%+ Black) if it was possible for a race other then whites to be racist---according to this philosophy. I disagree with DD's assertion but if that is his belief then it has to run both ways.... right? While white population may by the majority population for the time being, trends tend to indicate that won't always be the case. And the day it isn't, then is it safe to say that white's can no longer be racist? Or would they have to give up all power?

There are plenty of areas and industries where the majority of the "power" and "influence" is not held by white interest. HBCU's and hip hop would be two examples. Can the people within those "habitats" be racist towards non-blacks? Or do they just fall under the guise of "hate" and "ignorance". And if that is the excuse----I would like a clear definition of what exactly racism is because too often I see similar actions defined differently depending on who is responsible for them or where they occur.

 
Lol Liberals trolls like DohDough always whipping out "racism" as a defense mechanism. There is no greater sign of a undercover racist than that.
 
It came up in another topic regarding an Asian-ran company that had policies that discriminated against Hispanics - I can't say for sure who it was, but the argument was that, even though the Asians owned and operated the company, they weren't being racist, but were supporting the racist white system by discriminating against Hispanics.

So, yeah - as long as white people hold the majority of the power, then it doesn't really matter if another group holds a concentrated amount of power and uses it in a way that normal people (and the dictionary) define as racist - everything that anyone does that isn't specifically designed to take down whitey is merely supporting white power and those Asian factory owners are probably secret members of the Klan.

Anyone using their power/authority against white people - well, it's okay, because some white people had slaves 100 years ago, so all people of color are justified for hating all white people.
 
I had asked a long time ago if on a microscopic level, if a neighborhood, or even city where the majority power was controlled by blacks (i.e. Baltimore; 60%+ Black) if it was possible for a race other then whites to be racist---according to this philosophy. I disagree with DD's assertion but if that is his belief then it has to run both ways.... right? While white population may by the majority population for the time being, trends tend to indicate that won't always be the case. And the day it isn't, then is it safe to say that white's can no longer be racist? Or would they have to give up all power?

There are plenty of areas and industries where the majority of the "power" and "influence" is not held by white interest. HBCU's and hip hop would be two examples. Can the people within those "habitats" be racist towards non-blacks? Or do they just fall under the guise of "hate" and "ignorance". And if that is the excuse----I would like a clear definition of what exactly racism is because too often I see similar actions defined differently depending on who is responsible for them or where they occur.
If only we had an example of a white minority being in control of a large non-white population...

If you want to understand the power dynamic, you have to examine why those spaces were created to begin with and where they currently exist within larger society. Not that you actually give a shit about HBCU's, but they're held to a different standard than most institutions of higher learning similar to how black men enjoy greater attention from the police despite socio-economic status compared to their white male peers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If only we had an example of a white minority being in control of a large non-white population...

If you want to understand the power dynamic, you have to examine why those spaces were created to begin with and where they currently exist within larger society. Not that you actually give a shit about HBCU's, but they're held to a different standard than most institutions of higher learning similar to how black men enjoy greater attention from the police despite socio-economic status compared to their white male peers.
So what word would you use to describe the outrage at HBCU's, by the overwhelmingly black population, when the homecoming queen is white or the starting quarterback is white... not that it would ever happen because civilized people be civilized...

oh wait a minute

 
So what word would you use to describe the outrage at HBCU's, by the overwhelmingly black population, when the homecoming queen is white or the starting quarterback is white... not that it would ever happen because civilized people be civilized...

oh wait a minute
In the same spirit of your troll post, I don't give a fuck about their outrage. In matter of fact, there isn't enough outrage about it. It's not like you're implying that black people are uncivilized, amirite? That's more Spokker's shtick.

I give you a C for effort. Would read troll again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the same spirit of your troll post, I don't give a fuck about their outrage. In matter of fact, there isn't enough outrage about it. It's not like you're implying that black people are uncivilized, amirite? That's more Spokker's shtick.

I give you a C for effort. Would read troll again.
Yeah... those goddamn WHITE tigers...

 
If you looked up the definition of "penis" in a dictionary, would you know everything there is to know about a penis? If I called you a dickhead, am I literally calling you a glans penis or am I implying something else? Or is context required to take it as an insult or not?
You should actually try to use a dictionary some time. Here is the definition of dickhead from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

a stupid or contemptible person

So, no, in this instance all I would require is a dictionary to understand that it is an insult. Thank you for proving my point about how useful dictionaries are.

 
bread's done
Back
Top