This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Cindy
1
« on: June 20, 2017, 09:34:09 PM »
If you're a black dude, at least
Honestly, I feel like it would have held up either way.
I mean, at the point where he'd been shot - probably, yeah. Cops covering their own asses has nothing to do with racial biases imo.
But I doubt the shooting itself would've happened in the first place if he wasn't a black dude.
Debatable. I've had white friends that were treated more belligerently (for the lack of a better term) by a cop during routine stops/interactions when the officer spotted their CWL in their wallet or when notified of a license to carry.
As crazy as I might sound, the problem lies in the mentality of police officers. They are not soldiers trying to come home from Afghanistan. They are common citizens that agreed to lay their life on the line for their community, and they should be damn happy to die to make their municipality a better place as opposed to worrying about coming home alive every night.
Oh, police definitely treat open carriers more poorly regardless of race, sure. Not arguing that. You can find thousands of youtube videos of people being harassed for doing so perfectly legally. I'm just saying he probably wouldn't have been shot and killed if he were white. Just, y'know, tazed and beaten and generally horribly mistreated.
2
« on: June 20, 2017, 09:17:15 PM »
If you're a black dude, at least
Honestly, I feel like it would have held up either way.
I mean, at the point where he'd been shot - probably, yeah. Cops covering their own asses has nothing to do with racial biases imo. But I doubt the shooting itself would've happened in the first place if he wasn't a black dude.
3
« on: June 20, 2017, 09:03:04 PM »
If you're a black dude, at least
4
« on: June 18, 2017, 07:48:27 PM »
Oh shit
Totally off topic but HEY IT'S ARIA
I haven't seen you in years, kiddo
But you have tho, I just went by Prime for awhile.
That name sounds familiar but honestly I don't really know who that was either
5
« on: June 18, 2017, 07:44:41 PM »
Oh shit
Totally off topic but HEY IT'S ARIA
I haven't seen you in years, kiddo
6
« on: June 18, 2017, 07:19:59 PM »
MY FRIENDS CALL ME COACH
7
« on: June 18, 2017, 07:14:09 PM »
Yeah, no worries. Global warming is a hoax also, it is not true.
I know you're just baiting but I can't wait to see the look of horror on the dumb faces of people who will realize far too late that climate change isn't a hoax.
What horror? The ones that fuck us will have already died off.
I mean Maybe Depends on if things slow down, continue at their current pace, or accelerate over the coming years
8
« on: June 18, 2017, 07:10:21 PM »
liberal trash
Finally, we can agree on something.
Probably coming at it from different ends of the spectrum, but yeah
9
« on: June 18, 2017, 07:09:23 PM »
Purely a difference in semantics at that point
Usually people saying that "black people can't be racist" are speaking in wide terms about institutional racism rather than individual or social racism. Obviously a black guy than think that white people are lesser and thus be traditionally racist.
Now whether using that term could be considered intentionally misleading is a whole different conversation but, y'know, whatever
Imo anyone has the potential to be just as "traditionally" racist as anyone else, obviously, but the presence of racism directed towards non-whites has an obviously higher precedent in the west and thus a larger impact
10
« on: June 18, 2017, 07:06:16 PM »
Woah
Crazy
I got the thing that I always say that I am
Didn't expect that
you can't even get 90% progressive hahaha
Probably because a lot of the questions that effect the "progressive" meter have to deal with cultures and traditions
I don't think aspects cultures and traditions should be kept if they're harmful, but they're still very interesting and something of a celebration of a people's history
Would you consider something genital mutilation to fall under that?
Lmao no obviously
And I re-took the test and got 86/73.4/74.6/90.4 in descending order on those values, if that makes you lads feel any better or something, which still fell under the "libertarian socialism" thing
What would you consider harmful aspects of a culture that are interesting and should be celebrated as part of that group's history?
Oh, no, I just worded that like shit
I meant that, while some aspects of culture or tradition can be harmful, cultures and traditions as a whole are interesting and celebratory and etc
Like, a shitty part of any given culture doesn't negative the interesting and non-harmful bits
Interesting maybe in a sort of morbid way, but what do you mean by celebrating something harmful?
Nothing harmful should be celebrated, bruv That's what I was just clarifying in that post Like, just because the aztecs sacrificed prisoners of war at an altar doesn't mean that their language, architecture, and so on should be discounted or discredited. Hence "a shitty part of any given culture doesn't negative the interesting and non-harmful bits". I'm not saying we should celebrate morbid or terrible parts of history, I'm saying that the morbid or terrible bits should mean that we throw the whole thing out and say it's beyond saving.
11
« on: June 18, 2017, 07:02:08 PM »
Woah
Crazy
I got the thing that I always say that I am
Didn't expect that
you can't even get 90% progressive hahaha
Probably because a lot of the questions that effect the "progressive" meter have to deal with cultures and traditions
I don't think aspects cultures and traditions should be kept if they're harmful, but they're still very interesting and something of a celebration of a people's history
Would you consider something genital mutilation to fall under that?
Lmao no obviously
And I re-took the test and got 86/73.4/74.6/90.4 in descending order on those values, if that makes you lads feel any better or something, which still fell under the "libertarian socialism" thing
What would you consider harmful aspects of a culture that are interesting and should be celebrated as part of that group's history?
Oh, no, I just worded that like shit I meant that, while some aspects of culture or tradition can be harmful, cultures and traditions as a whole are interesting and celebratory and etc Like, a shitty part of any given culture doesn't negate the interesting and non-harmful bits
12
« on: June 18, 2017, 06:56:55 PM »
No Kill Rule super heroes are liberal trash tbh
I understand it when it applies to hired goons in mobs, but when you're refusing to kill people who're responsible for the deaths of hundreds, thousands, or millions of others because "that would make you just like them", you're a dumb idiot.
Hollywood movies pull that shit all the time, too, and it makes me hurl.
13
« on: June 18, 2017, 06:53:07 PM »
Woah
Crazy
I got the thing that I always say that I am
Didn't expect that
you can't even get 90% progressive hahaha
Probably because a lot of the questions that effect the "progressive" meter have to deal with cultures and traditions
I don't think aspects cultures and traditions should be kept if they're harmful, but they're still very interesting and something of a celebration of a people's history
Would you consider something genital mutilation to fall under that?
Lmao no obviously And I re-took the test and got 86/73.4/74.6/90.4 in descending order on those values, if that makes you lads feel any better or something, which still fell under the "libertarian socialism" thing
14
« on: June 18, 2017, 06:46:25 PM »
Woah
Crazy
I got the thing that I always say that I am
Didn't expect that
you can't even get 90% progressive hahaha
Probably because a lot of the questions that effect the "progressive" meter have to deal with cultures and traditions I don't think aspects cultures and traditions should be kept if they're harmful, but they're still very interesting and something of a celebration of a people's history
15
« on: June 18, 2017, 06:33:43 PM »
Woah Crazy I got the thing that I always say that I am Didn't expect that
16
« on: May 26, 2017, 11:17:26 AM »
At some point a nation needs to be held responsible for its own ugly history. I mean, that's much easier to say from the perspective of living in countries that have always been at least relatively stable in recent history (meaning the last few centuries) Of course those places have their own issues, but it's less so that all of their issues were cause by colonialism/imperialism and more so that they were amplified by them. Lots of Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East is still dealing with the fact that a lot of the internal bits of the countries hate the shit out of each other because some bastards with big guns and boats drew lines on a map and went "yup, that's a country, now."
17
« on: May 26, 2017, 10:26:29 AM »
The "what about X religion as well!" is such a cop out argument. Yeah, Christianity and Judaism contain a slew of disgusting passages, but Christian and Jewish terrorism is not the primary concern right now, is it?
But if the topic is just "gross shit written in holy books", it's perfectly fair to bring up the others in juxtaposition. My point in all this is that Islam is no inherently better or worse than many of other religions and screaming about how it's the death of modern society shows a massive lack of understand about why terror acts are being committed. It has much more to do with surrounding factors such as culture, government, access to education and technology, and the stability of the region than it has to do with any one specific religion. There's a tendency that people have that's called "end of history" or something like that, which is where people imagine all the things that happened in the past as being ancient history while things happening in the present are the finality - the end state of the world. Every religion has done pretty terrible things in the name of their god(s) at one point or another in history, more or less, and I'd hesitate to say that it was ever done solely because of religion with no outlying factors.
18
« on: May 26, 2017, 10:22:40 AM »
We do know about it. Religious minorities are highly persecuted in Muslim countries. Yeah, including other muzzies, who have been the primary targets of Islamic terrorism. Primarily due to proximity, but still. It's not like terrorist groups are only massacring Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians and shit. The fact that so many Muslim terrorist organizations exist is us knowing about it. And the fact that the region was incredibly destabilized due to the invasions of numerous foreign powers has nothing to do with it, I suppose? Not to mention the numerous Christian terrorist groups such as the NLFT and LRA in similarly destabilized regions across Africa and South Asia. The fact that women are discouraged or sometimes even outright banned from participating in society is us knowing about it. Again, it's not as though this is exclusive to Muslim countries. Ethiopia doesn't exactly have the best track record for their treatment of women, for example, even though it's been a hot topic there recently. And why do you think these regions are destabilized? Primarily due to centuries of invasion and warfare by competing foreign powers such as the US and USSR. Same reason so much of Africa is fucked up. Or are we working off of the "imperialism and colonialism were actually good things and the fact that the Belgians exterminated half of the Congo while using them for slave labor is a positive and/or never happened" sort of logic, here? You idiots act like there's some fringe terrorist groups and everybody else is normal when they're a large amount of Muslims too big to call a minority are for all sorts of barbaric things. No, us idiots act like taking a populace from a destabilized region constantly barraged with warfare, coups, invasions, tribal disputes, etc and blaming all of these factors on one thing is one of the most constantly annoying repeated positions I've ever heard. Does Islam help in radicalization? Yes, of course it does. Is Islam the sole reason for the destabilization of the middle east to the point that removing it would suddenly cause peace and harmony? No, of course not, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. And before you ignore the rest of the post to claim that I'm an idiot for saying something you didn't, yes, that is hyperbole. It's so strange to see people acting like "Islam isn't the root cause of terrorism and the majority of Muslims are probably relatively fine people" means the same thing as "Islam literally has no factor in this and ISIS is just comprised of poor abused youth and it's all whitey's fault". You can go on about how the Quran is a bit more violent than the other Abrahamic books (which honestly I'm very unsure of but it's not like I have a way to prove or deny that claim), but for the most part, your average Muslim living in a shack in Afghanistan is gonna be no different than your average Christian living in a shack in Alabama in a vacuum. I've met Muslims who were ten times nicer than half of the christians and atheists I've met. In short, while Islam is more likely to coincide with terrorism in the modern day, it doesn't necessitate it, which is the largest difference. And despite the fact that many Muslims in third-world countries might hold rather radical views, which they by and large do, a very small minority are truly "radical" to the point of joining terrorist cells.
19
« on: May 26, 2017, 09:38:52 AM »
You can find shit equally as bad if not worse in the Torah and New Testament as you can in the Quran. Well yeah, but they're not as prevalent.
It's all very good saying religion is shit and that they're all equally violent faiths (which is incorrect), but the fact of the matter is Islam is the slowest kid in the class when it comes to reconciliation of faith with the values of western society.
ISIS and various other Islamic terrorist organisations take the most extremist interpretations of the text that the majority of Muslims do not subscribe to, yes, but that doesn't mean they're not legitimate interpretations.
The "what about X religion as well!" is such a cop out argument. Yeah, Christianity and Judaism contain a slew of disgusting passages, but Christian and Jewish terrorism is not the primary concern right now, is it?
Yes but Christianity and Judaism also aren't the majority religion of pretty much the most unstable areas of the entire world. Religion is a factor, but it's not the only factor. Muslims make up about a forth of the entire world's population. If Islam was as radicalizing and horrific as people like to say that it is, we'd know.
20
« on: May 26, 2017, 09:36:38 AM »
Of course you don't, because you don't know the first thing about Islam and assume the Quran just says "kill whities and rape women" for hundreds of pages and then ends. There are quite a substantial amount of passages about violence and conquering, though.
The sparse peaceful verses that do exist are only superseded by the violent ones, and that's only because the peaceful passages are referring to practising Muslims.
Yeah, the Q'uran might not be the serial killing cookbook Trumpanzees make it out to be, but it's not inaccurate to say it's a heavily violent book.
Well yeah, but so is every other Judaic religion's book
Religion as a whole and especially Abrahamic religions are hot garbage and need to go, but the way idiots assume that every Muslim is a terrorist because "muh violent book" is retarded as fuck. You can find shit equally as bad if not worse in the Torah and New Testament as you can in the Quran.
How many christians or jews do you see go blow themselves up?
Blow themselves up? Not many. Commit violent crime? Thousands.
21
« on: May 26, 2017, 09:16:41 AM »
Islam ban would never have to be enforced if politicians were smart and patriotic. Nazism was eradicated, the same could be done to Islam.
>says nazism was eradicated >sucks the metaphorical dick of a guy worshipped by neo-nazis lmao
22
« on: May 26, 2017, 09:15:57 AM »
Of course you don't, because you don't know the first thing about Islam and assume the Quran just says "kill whities and rape women" for hundreds of pages and then ends. There are quite a substantial amount of passages about violence and conquering, though.
The sparse peaceful verses that do exist are only superseded by the violent ones, and that's only because the peaceful passages are referring to practising Muslims.
Yeah, the Q'uran might not be the serial killing cookbook Trumpanzees make it out to be, but it's not inaccurate to say it's a heavily violent book.
Well yeah, but so is every other Judaic religion's book Religion as a whole and especially Abrahamic religions are hot garbage and need to go, but the way idiots assume that every Muslim is a terrorist because "muh violent book" is retarded as fuck. You can find shit equally as bad if not worse in the Torah and New Testament as you can in the Quran.
23
« on: May 26, 2017, 07:52:14 AM »
Allow muslim refugees to enter your country if they sign a deal paper where they promise to give up Islam. Deport them if they break this promise.
So essentially; ban law-abiding citizens from practicing freedom of religion?
Because if someone's a terrorist, they'd already, you know, do their terror thing before they could be deported
And besides, that's extremely unconstitutional, a word that I thought you right-leaning folk shat their pants at the implications of.
Islam ban would be justified because we are not allowed to practice christianity in muslim majority countries.
Lmao literally toddler logic
Apparently it's okay to be unconstitutional but only if other people are being meanies?
When have liberals cared about the constitution? Islam is a violent religion. It cannot be allowed no longer.
So when people you disagree with want to forget the constitution, they're horrible cretins, but when you disagree with the constitution, that's just levelheadedness? Also "it cannot be allowed no longer" lmao
24
« on: May 26, 2017, 07:13:36 AM »
Also, how would "stop Muslims from practicing Islam" accomplish literally anything?
You guys know that there are literally passages in the Quran that state that you're allowed to lie about your religion if you are being persecuted for it, and that masquerading as a non-Muslim in such a case is a righteous and holy thing to do, right?
Of course you don't, because you don't know the first thing about Islam and assume the Quran just says "kill whities and rape women" for hundreds of pages and then ends.
Taqiyya is more of a Shia thing. And at the same time it's not something you would see happen because if the American government were to start shutting down mosques and banning Islam it would be more important to practice jihad, not taqiyya. To practice jihad is to struggle in the name of Islam.
Yeah but I doubt the average person would want to go full sword-jihad, even if the government started doing shit like that.
25
« on: May 26, 2017, 07:12:30 AM »
Allow muslim refugees to enter your country if they sign a deal paper where they promise to give up Islam. Deport them if they break this promise.
So essentially; ban law-abiding citizens from practicing freedom of religion?
Because if someone's a terrorist, they'd already, you know, do their terror thing before they could be deported
And besides, that's extremely unconstitutional, a word that I thought you right-leaning folk shat their pants at the implications of.
Islam ban would be justified because we are not allowed to practice christianity in muslim majority countries.
Lmao literally toddler logic Apparently it's okay to be unconstitutional but only if other people are being meanies?
26
« on: May 26, 2017, 07:11:28 AM »
In the last four to five years they haven't changed exponentially, nor do I see them changing anytime soon.
Now my views from about a decade ago? Pfffft, that's like a night and day difference.
Are you an oldfag?
Because my views from a decade ago were "woah I better finish my maths homework so I can play outside"
math*
mathe* Because I was in Germany at the time, ay-o
27
« on: May 26, 2017, 05:51:11 AM »
Allow muslim refugees to enter your country if they sign a deal paper where they promise to give up Islam. Deport them if they break this promise.
So essentially; ban law-abiding citizens from practicing freedom of religion? Because if someone's a terrorist, they'd already, you know, do their terror thing before they could be deported And besides, that's extremely unconstitutional, a word that I thought you right-leaning folk shat their pants at the implications of.
28
« on: May 26, 2017, 05:29:33 AM »
In the last four to five years they haven't changed exponentially, nor do I see them changing anytime soon.
Now my views from about a decade ago? Pfffft, that's like a night and day difference.
Are you an oldfag? Because my views from a decade ago were "woah I better finish my maths homework so I can play outside"
29
« on: May 26, 2017, 05:28:11 AM »
I used to be an edgy reactionary and now I'm a far-left SJW
ayo
30
« on: May 26, 2017, 05:16:57 AM »
I am really opposed to this removal. We have some good history and bad. Removing all the monuments to the bad essentially is rewriting history. Our cultural narrative is dependent on learning from our mistakes. By doing this we're creating a history that is Disneyesque. It's not real. History isn't a fight between good and evil. It's people living in the social framework of their time. Our modern morality shouldn't play a role in what happened then. At least in so far as the monuments of that history. This isn't having a battle flag as a state symbol. This is having a place that we learn from our mistakes
No, it's a statue, the sort of thing that's almost always erected in celebration of something It's not a memorial, it's not a museum, it's a statue celebrating literal traitors and slaveowners. You can go to holocaust museums in Germany, but I don't know about any statues of Hitler decorating the streets.
|
Show Posts