POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

Poll

Will Trump get re-elected in 2020?

Yes
No

Author Topic: POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD  (Read 2178908 times)

christ this like the "you can't be tribal against muslims because muslim isn't a race!!!" retort

Why, because people call out idiots who try to throw the words tribal and genocide around?

And you can't be tribal against a religion so...?

because arguing semantics between racial discrimination and religious discrimination is pointless just like "he killed 400,000 people due to their race" is really not any different than "he killed 400,000 people due to their religion" because the end result (400,000 dead civilians) is the same.

also the word genocide is not limited to ethnicity anyway

And you can't be tribal against a religion so...?
This, religion is a form of ideology, and no idea is above scrutiny.

This, religion is a form of ideology, and no idea is above scrutiny.

"Scrutiny" implies the scorn comes from a place of reason, which doesn't seem to be the case here.

This, religion is a form of ideology, and no idea is above scrutiny.
is killing people a form of scrutiny?

because arguing semantics between racial discrimination and religious discrimination is pointless just like "he killed 400,000 people due to their race" is really not any different than "he killed 400,000 people due to their religion" because the end result (400,000 dead civilians) is the same.

also the word genocide is not limited to ethnicity anyway

It matters when people wanna nail others to the wall over being tribal when they're really just stuffting on a religion. No one ever complains when Christianity gets lambasted but when it comes to Muslims and Islam we aren't allowed to say stuff. Semantics matter because when you make them irrelevant people try to merge stuff like that together to stop others from speaking. So forget that.

is killing people a form of scrutiny?

Stop acting like we're trying to justify Assad's Flash Mobing

"Scrutiny" implies the scorn comes from a place of reason, which doesn't seem to be the case here.

If you're referring to the scorn between sunnis and shiites of course it doesn't come from a place of reason

Stop acting like we're trying to justify Assad's Flash Mobing
it was directed at master matthew, not you. you aren't the center of the universe

nobody here is justifying Flash Mobing but a few of you aren't that quick to condemn it

Criticizing a religion is fine. Persecuting religious people isn't.

it was directed at master matthew, not you. you aren't the center of the universe

nobody here is justifying Flash Mobing but a few of you aren't that quick to condemn it

You say that like it needs condemning, as if by not actively condemning it you're justifying it
And Matthew was only seconding my point so I feel like I'm free to respond here

it was directed at master matthew, not you. you aren't the center of the universe

nobody here is justifying Flash Mobing but a few of you aren't that quick to condemn it
And why should people be forced to answer for or condemn actions for which they are not responsible?

Demanding condemnation is equivalent to demanding 1.) that someone take a public stance on an issue and 2.) demanding that they take one particular, "acceptable" stance on that issue.

You're not only asking them to say something, but telling them what they have to say as well.



On that note, baseless condemnations are worth about the same as no condemnation.

Whenever someone posts something on twitter with "#PrayFor[site of last terror attack]" or a status on Facebook condemning "racism" as a whole or saying something like "forget national socialists", it's just about the most self-centered richard-waving one can do. It's like saying, "HEY EVERYONE, LOOK AT ME, I AM AWARE OF INJUSTICE, I AM SUCH A CARING PERSON" without actually having to sacrifice anything to support the victims of said injustice.

It's just a bunch of narcissistic nonsense.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2017, 03:22:49 PM by Cappytaino »

do we actually live in a time where we have to condemn genocide

You say that like it needs condemning
so it doesn't need to be condemned but we need to be scolded for misusing the word 'genocide' when applied to a mass killing of civilians



you and all the right-leaning users are essentially 1-upping everyone else by saying 'you're wrong its not a genocide' and then when i try to keep the convo on track about the fact that civilians are still dying thats now everyone's cue to completely strawman everything

do we actually live in a time where we have to condemn genocide
we live in a time where people still are too afraid to intervene and stop genocide
« Last Edit: September 01, 2017, 03:39:26 PM by PhantOS »

do we actually live in a time where we have to condemn genocide
Some people's feelings get hurt if you just assume that it's implied unless otherwise stated that most people are against genocide.

The people who have the most fragile feelings also tend to be the most loud when said fragile emotional state is broken.

For example, only 8% of people believe making sure nobody is offended is MORE important than free speech (middle/bottom of 2nd paragraph). But that 8% is very, VERY loud. It makes it seem like there are more of them than there actually are.


you and all the right-leaning users are essentially 1-upping everyone else by saying 'you're wrong its not a genocide' and then when i try to keep the convo on track about the fact that civilians are still dying thats now everyone's cue to completely strawman everything
we live in a time where people still are too afraid to intervene and stop genocide
1. tribalism is scummy, don't turn things into a "left vs right" moral issue.

You clearly have no understanding of the historical context of past genocides if you think people not intervening is somehow abnormal. A major reason the Genocide in Rwanda went on as long as it did was the refusal of Clinton and the United Nations as a whole to declare the situation in Rwanda as a "Genocide" until long after the atrocities had already been committed. The same thing with the Serbs/Bosnians, the Khmer Rouge, and currently, the persecution of the Yazidi people and genocide in Sudan.

Genocides historically and currently are NEVER declared until after the atrocities have already taken place because there is no real way to determine genocidal action before it has already been taken. Intervention is always far too late because genocide is complicated, messy, and by the time anyone every gets around to intervening, the genocide is already winding down.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2017, 03:45:16 PM by Cappytaino »

Some people's feelings get hurt if you just assume that it's implied unless otherwise stated that most people are against genocide.

The people who have the most fragile feelings also tend to be the most loud when said fragile emotional state is broken.

For example, only 8% of people believe making sure nobody is offended is MORE important than free speech (middle/bottom of 2nd paragraph). But that 8% is very, VERY loud. It makes it seem like there are more of them than there actually are.
what the literal forget are you talking about? this is like some master matthew level derailing right here

Some people's feelings get hurt if you just assume that it's implied unless otherwise stated that most people are against genocide.

The people who have the most fragile feelings also tend to be the most loud when said fragile emotional state is broken.

For example, only 8% of people believe making sure nobody is offended is MORE important than free speech (middle/bottom of 2nd paragraph). But that 8% is very, VERY loud. It makes it seem like there are more of them than there actually are.

those damn sjws trying to make me say genocide is a bad thing