eee
25d ago
Why do you think it makes sense to say that the views of some random politician are emblematic of the "online racialist Right"? During the Biden administration, could I quote some random official and say that their position is the position of online radical leftists?
People accuse you of unfairly representing other groups opinions... because you don't understand their positions and represent them unfairly. And when people point out that you have done this you throw a big hissyfit. Then, you go right back to doing the same thing.
eee
27d ago
eee
27d ago
All you have done is clearly demonstrate that you have already made up your mind and no matter what hoops people jump through will not be sufficient. People have already provided numerous specific examples of his bad behaviour and first you lie and say that no one provided any examples and then you say only one of them was bad and the other guy was worse. Even if that were true that just means both people were behaving badly and not any excuse for his bad behaviour.
I am not about to spend my precious time digging up dozens of links to posts about some nobody on an internet forum of no importance. This is even more true when it is years old and said person is a chronically online obsessed loser that spends 12+ hours a day posting on reddit.
Even if I did you would not bother to engage with and would dismiss it all out of hand in exactly the same way you did to all of the other dozens of examples that people already provided you with.
If you care so much about his posting history why don't you spend dozens of hours going through it and come back and write a report on it? I frankly don't give a shit if you believe his presence was a net-negative for the forum (it obviously was). All you have done is make me update towards you also being a net-negative.
eee
29d ago
I would be interested in you actually substantiating that a very large percentage of Americans find the "social justice craze" to be a good thing. From what I remember of studies such as Hidden Tribes is that progressives make up like 5% of Americans which is an incredibly small amount. It is hard to get a very large percentage of Americans to agree on just about anything. Only 82% of Americans say that illegal aliens face discrimination! I don't see how you can think they don't when by definition they face de jure discrimination and there is so much obvious de facto discrimination as well.
I think to get very large percentages of Americans to agree on social justice you have to either water down "very large" from 70%+ down to like 30% or define "social justice craze" in such a broad manner as "yeah some things kinda suck for some people and thats a bad thing".
Though I do think that the grandparent is also at fault for not being more specific in what exactly he thinks the leaders he is thinking of should have opposed and how they should've gone about accomplishing that.
eee
29d ago
The article you linked goes over some of the things I was going to mention related to rice in Japan, but I still want to link this Asianometry video that covers the subject.
eee
29d ago
I'm not sure what your point is. Several of the posts in this chain are deleted so I'm going off vague memories here. Regardless, I don't see how interracial marriage or how exclusive is even a relevant factor. Even if it was, ultraracists are generally actually OK with minorities as long as they believe the right things. I don't see how this is any different from Hasidics trying to exclude anyone that does not share their views.
eee
29d ago
I'm not about to spend hours going through 5 year old comments of someone to find specific comments. That would be a gigantic waste of time for numerous reasons. The first is that this matter is so no real importance. The second is that you have already not accepted the testimony of numerous people recounting their personal experiences with him. Furthermore, several of them did provide receipts and here you are lying saying that no one has! Why exactly would I bother knowing that no matter what I post you aren't going to acknowledge it? Also when you make similar claims you do not bother to substantiate it yourself?
Quoting her is a good source of her opinion on an issue. It would also probably be a good source for the view of the administration as a whole (though Trump seems to disagree with his own people a lot). How exactly is it a good source for the view of the vague mass of people that you are ascribing her view to? Politicians and party bureaucracy always have disagreements with their supporters.
This argument--that you didn't even make--that you can assume their view is in congruence because they aren't making a big fuss about it is completely nonsensical and completely unsubstantiated. Hell, it would be hard to provide evidence for it though a few op-eds, essays or tweets from credible sources would work somewhat. Even if you had that though, why would we think that everyone has heard this random interview on 60 minutes? If they disagree, would they care enough to voice their disagreement? It isn't like we are talking about Obama drone striking people or something that would cause actual outrage.
Since you are having so much trouble with this I will help you out and give you a recipe of how to make a good post:
More options
Context Copy link