@Nantafiria's banner p
BANNED USER: repeated antagonism and bad behavior

Nantafiria


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:01:21 UTC

				

User ID: 246

Banned by: @Amadan

BANNED USER: repeated antagonism and bad behavior

Nantafiria


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:01:21 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 246

Banned by: @Amadan

Nah.

  • -22

For a while they were at the very least acting like all they wanted is apolitical treatment, if they never believed it, why should I take them at their word regarding anything?

The standard response, and the correct one, is that the people who used to get them fired and beaten and marginalised are suddenly uncommonly invested in a tolerance they never believed in. Why should they believe anyone who talks about it when it never seems to have been on the table before?

That's flatly wrong. It was indeed possible to participate in hobby groups and focus on the hobby instead of any politics for many, many years prior to the awokening.

Not for gay people, it wasn't. And lest you compare their fate to yours, they were in fact born that way in a way the people bemoaning anything rainbow-colored aren't.

  • -19

I refer to my original comment, where being known as gay would get you barred from the military or most any normal person's job, and where this was so pervasive it was the expectation. "There's no such thing as no-politics" indeed, because these gay people I've met and spoken to never had a choice.

  • -19

I really don't ascribe to that sorts of view.

  • -14

Did you have something to say that isn't unsolicited complaining about the way other people talk?

  • -13

Then, I suppose, I'll see you again when that time comes. I don't care to see discourse dragged down because you'd rather warn me than any number of low-effort culture warring posters lighting up my notifications here, and I don't care for being warned for posting a nah in response to that.

  • -12

He's plenty plain, rhetorical or not.

  • -12

Then you are on a different website than I am, because such comments are the order of the day. Constantly. They do not stop. To call out any single one without making it a hobby is a textbook isolated demand for rigor.

  • -11

Sometimes I dislike stuff that may or may not break the rules, and I don't much care for pinging the mods for every post out there. I did not start the rudeness here - and yes, soccer moms who hate 'he started it' are wrong.

  • -10

If all the pieces fit, it is because it is very easy to fit anything into the glaringly big voids this jigsaw leaves us. 'It totally could be Joe, see, see!' isn't enough in court and it shouldn't be enough for much else, either.

The progressives disagree with you that these spaces were ever non-political, and frankly, I think they're right. I could talk at length about Dutch pillarisation and the funny consequences this had for society, but the people who bemoan politics being everywhere now are people who haven't been paying attention for all that long.

I'll cop to having not much to state beyond my annoyance that he had nothing else to say, sure.

So Elon is a liar of a hypocrite you shouldn't trust to keep his word, your opinion on @elonjet nonwithstanding.

That this comment got the downvotes it did is a really good illustration for why they need to go, imo.

If you will support your nation only when times are good to begin with, you were always a mercenary to begin with; it just so happens that the truth got revealed a little more dramatically in these cases.

It's pathetic, isn't it? More proof for the habitual contrarian theory of Mottizenship.

@yofuckreddit up there notes that he believes someone who can't get a driver's license probably doesn't deserve to vote. Fair enough. I'll echo the same perspective here: if you got defrauded by your granddaughter, wife, or ex-boyfriend, you deserve to lose that vote too. Consider those the wages of not treating the one vote you get more carefully, I suppose.

And re: 'I bet they happened widely in 2020'

Well, I bet they didn't. Now what?

no honest person

You can do better than insist you're only talking to liars, and I'd appreciate if you did that rather than accuse me of lying to your face.

Because, for what it's worth, I'm sure those are the things you believe. And I'm also sure gay people are right to point out that these beliefs, today, are the ones of people who'd love to shove them back down the closet. Until there is a way to distinguish the likes of you from the likes of them, a good deal of them are going to take a dim view of people who bemoan a lost tolerance. A tolerance, I'll add, that they didn't see much of in the first place.

No one cared what you were doing outside the hobby group.

The workplace. The military. Public life in general.

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. History didn't start off in the 2010s, and plenty of people cared about that just fine.

Slave states treated (white) people with nothing to their name very differently from those enslaved black people, both before and after slavery ended.

seeing how annoying you can be before you get banned.

That's not why I'm here, but fuck you and the horse you rode in on, too? The fuck?

One hundred thousand fewer people on active duty, in an army of over a million, the cause of which the statistics (obviously) won't tell us.

If that's it, I'm going to keep filing this under the non-issue drawer, yeah.

I get that it's real satisfying to talk shit about your outgroup, but I really don't care about that. I want for policing to be just, and the American custom of anti-white racism just isn't a factor.

Ok, then we should be able to see them perform on par, and not better, with black people in the non-racist areas they're moving to. Yes?

No, why?

I originally brought up non-white minorities who immigrated poor, who are now outperforming whites, you responded by saying the groups that immigrated were disproportionately well off. I think it's reasonable to read it as disputing my claim that they immigrated poor? At best it's completely irrelevant to the point I was raising, and I don't understand then why you brought it up.

There are roughly two groups of nonwhite people who migrated to the US, the difference of which is relevant here:

Nonblack people. A bunch of these certainly arrived in the US poor, but were not on the receiving end of as much legal and cultural ill-treatment as southern black people were, and perhaps are. So, not relevant to southern blacks' lives.

Black Africans. As opposed to the former group, extremely few of these headed for the US destitute as can be, nor were these people quite so unskilled. Poor by American standards - certainly. Not so much poor by the standards of their home nation.

If these Non-South US areas are so eager for skilled workers, and welcoming to everyone from any part of the world, why are they struggling so much in educating their local populations to become just as skilled?

Well, a lot of the native skilled workers really don't want the competition, and find tacking on credentialism/licensing nonsense easier than blocking immigration, though they'd love more of that too. I don't know how much SSC you've read, but Scott certainly has spilled plenty ink on showing how this works in medicine, and it is far from the only field where this is a problem.

People treat those non-white minorities differently from slaves' descendants too! Second-generations Nigerians are intensely easy to tell apart from people who've lived in Georgia for the past 250 years, and they are treated differently as much as they both arrived in the US very differently.

Communism attracting people who aren't as evil and hateful is exactly why you should trust them more. Not to run the country sure, but to paint your fence or mind your pets? Not a big deal.