POLITICS Origins of Racism, Sexism, Other “isms”?

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by Tenacious D, Jul 10, 2018.

  1. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    That make the point that what? Fast people are fast?

    Because that is what it amounts to; fast people are fast.

    Q: Why are there more fast black people?

    Ssmith’s answer: Because they are black.

    That’s circular, but that is the only “point” you have attempted to make.
     
  2. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Then you are bullshitting. Go find one, it’s very simple.

    You can start like this:

    Sexism is when cats mate.

    And then run some tests.
     
  3. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    You don’t know what either is, so you can’t judge any response as accurate or not.
     
  4. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    You don’t know what it is, so you can’t judge any response as accurate or not.
     
  5. Ssmiff

    Ssmiff Went to the White House...Again

    Cant be only cultural when all grow up under different circumstances in different parts of the country.
     
  6. kmf600

    kmf600 Energy vampire

    You're the best evet
     
  7. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    But it can be racial, when not everyone in professional sports is the same race?
     
  8. kmf600

    kmf600 Energy vampire

    We have 2 black linemen out of like 15 guys. We have 5 Hispanic linemen.
     
  9. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    That’s my definition, and I’m well aware of it’s meaning, and can judge that which meets it, and quite easily.

    Everyone should be treated equally.

    Simple, really.
     
  10. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    It’s like you’ve never met a Florida, Georgia, or Bama fan. Or Ohio State. Or Vandy.

    Well now that I think about it they pretty much all suck. Everyone else can be treated equal. We should just be treated better.
     
  11. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    See, as humans, I say treat them equally. It’s ok to hate and mistreat them, but only once you find out their allegiance to those teams.
     
  12. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    What’s your definition?
     
  13. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Everyone should be treated equally and fairly, without regard to race, sex, religious belief, orientation, etc.
     
  14. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Seems more like a philosophy than a definition, but we can test it:

    Sexism: the belief that “Everyone should be treated equally and fairly, without regard to race, sex, religious belief, orientation, etc.”

    So you are saying you are or aren’t sexist under your definition?

    But either way, how do you treat two unequal things equal? Ie: PMS. Men can’t do it, so how do you treat men equally to women with regards to PMS?

    Or height? Are the paper plates always on the lowest level, with everything else?

    Seems like the office’ cabinets need some more horizontalness, for your philosophy to hold.
     
  15. kptvol

    kptvol Super Moderator

    Don’t tell me what I can’t do.
     
    justingroves likes this.
  16. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I personally think you'll make a great fire engine.
     
  17. Indy

    Indy Pronoun Analyst

    Holy shit, 23 pages already? Part of me really wants to read this, but 23 pages is a lot.
     
  18. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Don't. I can summarize:

    We disagreed.
     
    justingroves and NorrisAlan like this.
  19. kmf600

    kmf600 Energy vampire

    I work with a bunch of guys, I can say [uck fay] a million more times than a woman.
     
  20. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Did you mistake “should be” for “as the world currently exists and without exception”?

    Is that a valid definition, or not?
     

Share This Page