| Account Details | |
|---|---|
| SteamID64 | 76561198046954825 |
| SteamID3 | [U:1:86689097] |
| SteamID32 | STEAM_0:1:43344548 |
| Country | Canada |
| Signed Up | July 24, 2013 |
| Last Posted | April 21, 2021 at 11:36 PM |
| Posts | 682 (0.2 per day) |
| Game Settings | |
|---|---|
| In-game Sensitivity | |
| Windows Sensitivity | |
| Raw Input | |
DPI |
|
Resolution |
|
Refresh Rate |
|
| Hardware Peripherals | |
|---|---|
| Mouse | |
| Keyboard | |
| Mousepad | |
| Headphones | |
| Monitor | |
Hallowevery side of this is dumb. not calling someone by their preferred pronoun is pretty rude (welcome to the real world) but making it illegal to be rude is absolutely ridiculous.
last time I checked the guy doesnt even have a problem calling people by there pronouns, he said he may or may not use peoples pronouns depending on how they ask him. so he's basically saying if your gonna be rude to me im gonna be rude to you
mustardoverlordSpaceCadetIt was solid TF2 and I enjoyed watching it from start to finish.
if you watched the same game I did and somehow drew that conclusion I don't know what to tell you
but then again you're the guy who thought Eric Garner was "resisting arrest" so maybe your eyeballs are just faulty
technically he was when you're getting arrested and you put your arms up and say dont touch me you're resisting, but you know the officers were definitely using excessive force
mustardoverlordwhatever happens, I am still undefeated this season :}
wait wtf do you say this every season, do you get cut from an undefeated team every season, are you such an unbearable human being people that even when you win people dont want to be around you?
eeeNub_Danishthe policy isn't racist its not targeting black people the fact that more black people are impacted by it does not make it racist in order for it to be racist it would have to intend to harm only the black peopleWhy does it have to only harm black people to be racist? Racism isn't just about prejudice or targeting people based on race. Racism is about a systemic and society wide devaluing of people based on perceived differences in biology/ethnicity that we group as a "race". People saying blacks can't be racist sound dumb, but in the most literal sense they aren't wrong because the core factor in what we determine to be racism depends on a power imbalance. That power balance manifests as a stratification of social class based on race (in a purely racist society). The US isn't purely racist, but there's definitely a lot of imbalance between race and class. The fact that the two are so correlated makes targeting one usually affect the other. This is why policies that affect the lower classes are seen as racist. US society has set itself up in such a way that the majority of lower class people are black but just enough are white to say you're not being racially motivated when you target lower classes with policy and come across as genuine. Recognizing that even policies that come from a completely racially unmotivated place can still have racist impacts by serving to reinforce the marginalization of minorities is important in be racially conscious.
if i decide not to give to charity am i racist because the charity gives more to blacks than it does to whites?
The fact that republicans hear this over and over and over and over and instead of explaining how their policies won't serve to maintain current social standings cry about how they aren't racist at all shows one of two things: the GOP is made up of politicians too stupid to understand basic sociological concepts OR the GOP knows that confronting this reality will alienate voters who aren't as well informed about how racism in America truly works and vote GOP by telling themselves they're voting for fiscal conservatism but don't hate black people. Most of them don't actually hate black people, but I doubt most people are particularly aware of the ways that class and race interact in America and don't realize when they get called racist it isn't because they're joining the Klan.
Occam's razor says the GOP isn't dumb
people aren't poor because there black your social standing isnt determined by your race the president was literally black racism is not so widespread
just because there is a larger number of minorities who are poor than does not mean we need to put legislation in to help them
republicans are conservative so they don't put legislation in to help people economically for the most part this economic policy does not make them racist
eeeNub_DanishPeople aren't poor because they're black, glad we agree. Black people are more likely to be poor because throughout the history of the US various ethnic majorities have declared themselves white and black people black and have worked to maintain the superiority of whites over other races. The fact that black people now, hundreds of years later, are still at the bottom even though the US is not directly racial in its policy is not a waiver saying the US is post-racial. Policies that disenfranchise inner-cities or harm people in lower income brackets will disproportionately affect more minorities than whites, and as a result these policies will continue to be racist.eeepeople are not poor because they are black what you said is wrong and is not a racist policywonderofl>greentext in tftv!!
meme arrows are used for quoting and they're easier than doing html for every single piece I want to discuss
why am i getting downvoted for providing the definition of racism?
That doesn't mean they're necessarily bad policies or that supporting them makes you a bad person, but reinforcing a society where race correlates to social class is reinforcing racism.
the policy isn't racist its not targeting black people the fact that more black people are impacted by it does not make it racist in order for it to be racist it would have to intend to harm only the black people
if i decide not to give to charity am i racist because the charity gives more to blacks than it does to whites?
eeewonderofl>greentext in tftv!!
meme arrows are used for quoting and they're easier than doing html for every single piece I want to discuss
why am i getting downvoted for providing the definition of racism?
people are not poor because they are black what you said is wrong and is not a racist policy
eeeEmilioEstevezyou realize there's a gradient to racism right?GentlemanJonMillions of people are rioting and believe that? This seems like it might be a rather unrealistic distortion on your part don't you think? If there were millions of rioters there wouldn't be much of most US cities left to worry about.
Yeah perhaps I worded that poorly. There haven't been millions rioting, but there are for sure significant numbers of democrats who legitimately believe that Trump is a fascist and anybody who supports him must be a racist homophobe. Which obviously isn't true.
It isn't like every Trump supporter is wearing a hood but its pretty clear they're far less concerned with racial issues than Dem voters are. Idk how everyone gets their fee fees hurt when someone tells them they're being racist.
SpaceCadetLumping everyone into the same group (racists) because of a few is exactly the double standard and hypocritical attitude of so many posters in this thread.
racism isn't a group its a character trait that is common among Trump supporters. More white people voted for Trump, more racists voted for Trump, fewer minorities did
Saying the average Trump supporter is an uneducated White guy isn't calling all of them uneducated white guys.
When people are saying Trump supporters are racist as a whole it is because they support policies that reinforce SES divide among races (IE the literal definition of racism). That's a fairly neutral thing on a national scale, since good and bad policies can be racist or not.
Its just pretty likely if you think blacks are icky that you voted for Trump because he keeps being White a good thing
pls tell me trumps policy that divides the races pls
people get there fee fees hurt when you call them racist for saying things because what they said wasn't racially motivated and being labeled a racist could lose you your job your friends etc
TERRYCREWSNub_DanishTERRYCREWShttp://www.express.co.uk/news/science/661478/END-OF-HUMANITY-Artificial-Intelligence-could-destroy-us-WITHIN-DECADES-warns-expertNub_DanishAI is gonna wipe us all out soon terry lets not worry about it taking away our jobs lets worry about it taking away our lives!!!!!
You know it doesn't help your arguments in this thread when you're being intentionally braindead
http://www.livescience.com/49952-stephen-hawking-warnings-to-humanity.html
alot of people developing AI think it could kill us my dude stephen hawking, elon musk you know some p smart dudes my dude and many more
I never said you were wrong. It's just not pertinent to the discussion at hand, but I guess that was lost on you too
I cant read your fuckin mind terry you say "your being intentionally braindead" it leads me to believe that you think the thing i said is so incredibly false that you cant believe a person with a brain would say it
i am aware that it was not pertinent
TERRYCREWSNub_DanishAI is gonna wipe us all out soon terry lets not worry about it taking away our jobs lets worry about it taking away our lives!!!!!
You know it doesn't help your arguments in this thread when you're being intentionally braindead
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/661478/END-OF-HUMANITY-Artificial-Intelligence-could-destroy-us-WITHIN-DECADES-warns-expert
http://www.livescience.com/49952-stephen-hawking-warnings-to-humanity.html
alot of people developing AI think it could kill us my dude stephen hawking, elon musk you know some p smart dudes my dude and many more
edit: I dunno why i said soon its more like its possible
AI is gonna wipe us all out soon terry lets not worry about it taking away our jobs lets worry about it taking away our lives!!!!!
eee>The idea of a singular global government means that individuals matter less
how? How in the world do individuals matter more or less if the entire world cooperates? Individuals barely matter now, they'd barely matter in a globalist world. No matter what you want to pretend people are already bound to each other for international trade. You don't get to just stop being a part of Earth.
>If the EU does things to fuck over and bully the UK it would be hurting itself
The end result would be a trade war where the EU and the UK try to see who has the bigger GDPdick and the UK is gonna get fucked much much much much harder I promise you.
Your argument could also be used to say that leaving the EU hurts the UK more. If they're major trade partners and the UK gives up any ability to negotiate internal agreements then the UK is now at the whim of the EU with no way to participate
the argument against globalism is you give up freedom cuz the governments so big and the bigger the government the more powerful government is more susceptible to a abuse of power because it has so much power
you ignore the fact that the EU would hurt itself to hurt the UK so why do something thats lose lose? also the allies of the UK in the EU probably dont wanna see the UK fucked over
eee>I'm not sure if you actually understand the globalist agenda
apparently not. Sorry for not knowing all the facets of your Illuminati conspiracies
>The globalist agenda is more about the promotion of a one world government with a global currency, global laws, open borders, global culture,
How are any of those bad? Increased trade and more efficient transmission of resources + people around the globe is good for humanity as a whole
> Brexit was about England maintaining its own sovereignty
and as a result England is still going to be bound to the whims of the EU in regards to trade but now has no control over EU policy. England is now more under the hand of globalism than before
The idea of a singular global government means that individuals matter less. Smaller government allows for issues facing a minority of people to actually matter.
If the EU does things to fuck over and bully the UK it would be hurting itself. If countries in EU see the UK getting fucked over they may also be inclined to leave. The reason for this is the UK is a major trade partner for most members of the EU so in order to hurt the UK these other countries would also be harmed, if they leave they would be able to make there own deals.
England left the EU because they didn't want to accept economic migrants because they could see the damage it was doing in germany. (I say economic migrants because there is nothing to show that the majority of the people are refugees from syria or other war torn countries)
"So instead you vote for the candidate that promises a reduction in nationally granted freedoms out of fear of some shadow entity in the future that you have no proof or cognizance of reducing your freedoms instead?"
What on earth are you even talking about, what freedoms does Trump want people to give up?
also curious about this my dude
also neither candidate got more than 50% percent of the vote so the neither is a majority
eeeNub_Danishyour saying California has no political power but they have 55 electoral votes which is a bit more than 10 percent of the total and they have a bit more than 10 percent of the population that seems to me like they have the appropriate amount of powerCalifornia represents 15% of the US's GDP and is overwhelmingly democrat. Yet the state that the US depends on the most to actually function is being governed by a government that is as diametrically opposed to them as is possible in US politics. If California seceded it would be the 6th largest GDP in the world and the US would fall from #1 to #2 as far as GDP goes (if you count the EU as a single trading entity). California's tax burden ends up being the vast majority of states that have citizens that hate california's politics. California is now being governed by a congress, president, and soon SC that will limit the rights of its citizens when possible.
the level of need the US has for California is far far far far far far far far far far far greater than the amount of political representation California gets.
that's why the Electoral college is bullshit. It tells the loser states they're more important than the people who actually make America matter
so what your saying is California should get more votes because they make alot of money... are you sure your not actually in support of fascism
you're saying California has no political power but they have 55 electoral votes which is a bit more than 10 percent of the total and they have a bit more than 10 percent of the population that seems to me like they have the appropriate amount of power