Indecision 2016 - In Soviet Russia, we elect american president!

Louis-1988

And if you subtract a handful of rustbelt states it goes the other way.

If you take away 24 million of Clinton's votes in the right places and apply only 100,000 of them to three states, she wins the electoral collage (which you only need 27% of the popular vote to get.).

And if you subtract all the states with an vowel in them, you get 0 voters.

If Abraham Lincoln hadn't been shot he'd be over 200 years old now.

Wombats are a species of mammal.

What the hell is your point?

Monkey King said my assertion that Trump won the majority of the American popular vote outside of the 3 largest states was "bullshit" and "absolutely no fact-hood". You could also give back New York and Texas to both candidates and Trump still leads the popular vote. My point was to show him that he is wrong about me "making up" that a majority of America outside CA, NY and TX didn't vote Trump.

Anyway, no need to get heated.

@Ubiq:

Wow, it's almost like arbitrarily excluding three states that make up a quarter of the population of the United States makes a big difference in the numbers.

That's not what the post was about. I encourage you to read the past few exchanges between MK and I so you have the full context of my reply.

@Monkey:

Florida is the third most populous state, not New York, so yes how convenient for you to subtract New York.
Also on what basis is "top three" the cut off.
Heck what are you even attempting here.
Your whole lousy argument is trying to argue that we need to marginalize coastal population centers. Which is not based on state borders and never has been.
If you're arbitrarily nuking New York voters for having the audacity to be numerous, you need to destroy the entire Northeast Corridor.
Oh but only the actual parts of the Northeast Corridor in New York to begin with, just downstate. Have to count those stalwart Real Americans of Upstate.

Wow its almost like state borders are a hilariously irrelevant way of even attempting your argument, your argument which is to begin with all about how great the electoral college is.

A "good faith" discussion is one where the discussion is real, and doesn't have any party acting like unpaid used car salesmen pushing a product.

You're shifting goalposts now. I was responding to your assertion that my claim that Trump won the majority of the popular vote outside of those three states was a "bullshit claim". Period. I understand that the post was bait so that you could rip into me about something irrelevant, but I'm not going to entertain it anymore beyond this post.

I didn't know Florida was more populous than New York, my mistake. Last time I checked the census bureau, New York was something like 19.8 million to Florida's 19.7 million, I believe.

I'm not randomly "nuking new york voters", it's only California that puts Hillary over in the popular vote at the end of the day.

And finally, I don't think the electoral college "is great", just that in its current iteration that it's functioning as intended. Yes, it needs revisions.

Green_vs_Red

@Louis-1988:

More supportive his good policy propositions? Yeah, why not? Why shouldn't we support the good ideas?

The good ideas he'll likely never follow through on and if he does will likely be blocked by congress.

Who have no reason to support his plan to keep certain elements of the ACA or bring back Glass-Stegal.

Monkey King

Guys hey guys, New York state is wall to wall Manhattan right? And to the immediate sides of that part that dangles down at the ocean is vast rolling hills of farms and proper American Herrenvolk listening to Hank Williams III and parking pickup trucks by creeks?

Robby

@Louis-1988:

Monkey King said my assertion that Trump won the majority of the American popular vote outside of the 3 largest states was "bullshit" and "absolutely no fact-hood". You could also give back New York and Texas to both candidates and Trump still leads the popular vote. My point was to show him that he is wrong about me "making up" that a majority of America outside CA, NY and TX didn't vote Trump.

You picked and chose your states, you didn't actually pick the top three.

And again, what is the point are you trying to make?

If you ignore 1/4 of the population you get different results? WHy don't you add in the people that didn't vote? That's a full half of the population, and children under 18. If you count them and children, and assume only people that voted for Trump actually wanted him, it's approximately 300 million to 50 million.

But that's an arbitrary made up number based on no actual guideline or reason, it's just the numbers I want to prove a point that can't really be verified or proven in any substantial way, so it has no bearing on anything nor is it a real number.

What if you count only women's votes? Trump loses. If you count only white men? He wins. What if you only count black people? Brown people? What if you count dogs named Skippy? What are the results if we only count Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota and Idaho? That's completely random and arbitrary while leaving out a bunch of other states too.

See how that's all bullshit and random?

Cyan D. Funk

@Monkey:

Guys hey guys, New York state is wall to wall Manhattan right? And to the immediate sides of that part that dangles down at the ocean is vast rolling hills of farms and proper American Herrenvolk listening to Hank Williams III and parking pickup trucks by creeks?

Actually you're not wrong, but replace Hank III with Ted Nugent.

Monkey King

@Louis-1988:

Monkey King said my assertion that Trump won the majority of the American popular vote outside of the 3 largest states was

Next Louis-1988 move forecast: "Hey I know I never said top three states before this, but it's what I meant guys :wassat:. And its not arbitrary in of itself anyway because reasons."
I mean that's just ignoring New York is the 4th most populous.

You could also give back New York and Texas to both candidates and Trump still leads the popular vote. My point was to show him that he is wrong about me "making up" that a majority of America outside CA, NY and TX didn't vote Trump.

So you're now transforming your argument into "California!!!".
Hey Louis would you be more comfortable if California was broken down like the East Coast into like eight states or something? I'm sure that would alter the popular vote.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

Hey guys, know what region has too many people? Too much land?
The South! I mean come on, that's like what...11-13 or so states? A ton of people and tons of geography? And they REALLY lean one way politically for the most part.
Just like thinking, how crazy would it be if we subtracted those votes, or like made them weaker.
California has like 38 million people, the South according to the census has 115 million people.
Holy crap! How can the honest hard working people of California get their voice heard with so many people in this other region!

What if we like made Southern votes count as like 1/2 of a vote elsewhere, sounds pretty fair to me.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

is part of a hugemassive region with over three times as many people as California

"W-who hears my tiny voice over the bellow of the west?"

Robby

Are we REALLY back to "California shouldn't count because it's on the leftmost timezone so it changes the results 4 hours later than the early tallies?"

Again?

Can we pretend, North Carolina, SOuth Carolina, and Georgia and Alabama don't count instead? That's 49 electoral votes between them, practically California. And they're on the east coast so they get counted first!

Wait, Alaska and Hawaii get counted last. And Hawaii is the biggest state by far in terms of landmass, its way bigger than Texas and California. Let's not count that instead.

Monkey King

New England has 15 million people all told.
As a distinct cultural region I demand immediate voter superpowers compared to the Midwesterners, Southerners, and really every other region pretty much.

Louis-1988

@Robby:

You picked and chose your states, you didn't actually pick the top three.

And again, what is the point are you trying to make?

If you ignore 1/4 of the population you get different results? WHy don't you add in the people that didn't vote? That's a full half of the population, and children under 18. If you count them and children, and assume only people that voted for Trump actually wanted him, it's approximately 300 million to 50 million.

But that's an arbitrary made up number based on no actual guideline or reason, it's just the numbers I want to prove a point that can't really be verified or proven in any substantial way, so it has no bearing on anything nor is it a real number.

What if you count only women's votes? Trump loses. If you count only white men? He wins. What if you only count black people? Brown people? What if you count dogs named Skippy? What are the results if we only count Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota and Idaho? That's completely random and arbitrary while leaving out a bunch of other states too.

See how that's all bullshit and random?

Aiaiai….

I don't know what else to tell you, man. I made it clear exactly what I was responding to. I'm sticking to that, and I'm not going to allow you to twist my argument any further. I refer you back to MK and I's discussion on the previous page for my answer. Maybe taking his bait wasn't such a good idea, I expected this.

@Monkey:

Next Louis-1988 move forecast: "Hey I know I never said top three states before this, but it's what I meant guys . And its not arbitrary in of itself anyway because reasons."
I mean that's just ignoring New York is the 4th most populous.

So you're now transforming your argument into "California!!!".
Hey Louis would you be more comfortable if California was broken down like the East Coast into like eight states or something? I'm sure that would alter the popular vote.

"W-who hears my tiny voice over the bellow of the west?"

Anyone who has engaged me honestly on this topic knows exactly which three states I am talking about. I know you do as well since this isn't our first go-around. Lets stop being silly.

No, but what would alter it though is if electoral votes were awarded on a percentage basis rather than winner-take-all since then candidates would feel compelled to campaign in all 50 states. That's a whole other conversation, though.

Cyan D. Funk

Hey guys, know what region has too many people? Too much land?
The South! I mean come on, that's like what…11-13 or so states? A ton of people and tons of geography? And they REALLY lean one way politically for the most part.
Just like thinking, how crazy would it be if we subtracted those votes, or like made them weaker.
California has like 38 million people, the South according to the census has 115 million people.
Holy crap! How can the honest hard working people of California get their voice heard with so many people in this other region!

What if we like made Southern votes count as like 1/2 of a vote elsewhere, sounds pretty fair to me.

Only 3/5 of the South is to count under the new fair system.

Monkey King

When the big region people come by to look at leaves, when the spoiled fat cats of big regions go to eat lobster for dinner, when the seething massive Tetsuo mutations of the big regions send their schools to the ivy leagues, they are overlooking the little voiceless people of the nation's northeastern extremity.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Louis-1988:

Aiaiai….

I don't know what to tell you, man. I made it clear exactly what I was responding to. I'm sticking to that, and I'm not going to allow you to twist my argument any further. I refer you back to MK and I's discussion on the previous page for my answer.

"I made it perfectly clear what I meant after three times of changing it. Ai carumba!"

CCC

I'm not sorry I missed this, but A+, doods.

Louis-1988

@Monkey:

"I made it perfectly clear what I meant after three times of changing it. Ai carumba!"

I've stuck to my guns on this issue since the day after election night.

Monkey King

Hey you wanna shove this disgusting "poor underheard heartland people" narrative??
I raise you one.
Here even have some overly earnest blue collar romantisizing 80's music!!!

Jesus fuck, do you EVEN know what the goddamn hell New England suffers through, oh boo hoo I make the earth fart up corn and maybe the president doesn't understand.
What EVEN do you know about hard working small town New England. Corn? CORN??

Heartland, more like fartland. We're the Headland, the friggin Head. With the little t-rex arms attached.
Here's yer Headland rock, real American working class beers in the air music. Ain't a goddamn cowboy hat in sight.

Hey Louis, where's my voice. WHERES MY VOICE STRING.

Robby

Zeph, you already won this one. Pull it back.

In other news, Trumps victory tour launches to a mostly empty stadium.
http://www.palmerreport.com/news/donald-trump-victory-tour-empty/315/

Louis-1988

@Monkey:

Hey you wanna shove this disgusting "poor underheard heartland people" narrative??
I raise you one

Not my argument. Anyway, I'm done with this silliness. Hopefully we can have a more pleasant and productive discussion next time around.

Monkey King

@Louis-1988:

I've stuck to my guns on this issue since the day after election night.

My boy you need not fill your fridge with being a pretend businessman any more. Your job as a professional political surrogate on CNN awaits.
Go, run to them. Run to their half-critical questions and often blankly accepting stares. Run to your destiny.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

Decadence and Privlige:

Real America:

Cyan D. Funk

Downeaster Alexa is my vote for Long Island's theoretical state song.

Ain't fuckin' no one has a future on this island.

Ubiq

Hey, guys, instead of that population thing, how about we make it so that a state receives electoral college votes relative to how much it pays in taxes into the system?

States that contribute more money that they get back get more electoral college votes than their current allotment. States that get more back, get less. So policy is dictated by the givers, not the takers.

Surely that's an idea Republicans can get behind, right?

Cyan D. Funk

Eddie Rabbitt was a confused man, from the poor and unheard lands of Brooklyn but playing the decadent bougie music of the real seat of American power.

@Ubiq:

Hey, guys, instead of that population thing, how about we make it so that a state receives electoral college votes relative to how much it pays in taxes into the system?

States that contribute more money that they get back, get more electoral college votes proportionate to their size. States that get more back, get less. So policy is dictated by the givers, not the takers.

Surely that's an idea Republicans can get behind, right?

And for the first time in it's near-250 year existence, the United States has no political influence coming from below the Mason-Dixon.

Louis-1988

@Ubiq:

Hey, guys, instead of that population thing, how about we make it so that a state receives electoral college votes relative to how much it pays in taxes into the system?

States that contribute more money that they get back get more electoral college votes than their current allotment. States that get more back, get less. So policy is dictated by the givers, not the takers.

Surely that's an idea Republicans can get behind, right?

I know you're being sarcastic (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), but buying elections is no more democratic than the current system we have in place.

Monkey King

You will notice the heartland man singing about water in a context of joy and recreation, a context wherein he and his sexual partner to be catch the fish and eat the fish. Here the water, a river. The controlled land-bound contours where man may take out his desires on the liquid with control and assurance.
In contrast the New England man is bound by the seemingly endless waters of the Atlantic Ocean, beyond his control, surrounded by it on his small sinking aquatic vehicle.
Here the fish catches the man, and the fish eats the man.

Robby

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/hillary-clinton-wasnt-charged-with-mishandling-classified-information-trump-might-appoint-someone-convicted-of-it/2016/12/01/9f44f04c-b726-11e6-959c-172c82123976_story.html

clinton-wasnt-charged-with-mishandling-classified-information-trump-might-appoint-someone-convicted-of-it

Green_vs_Red

@Louis-1988:

I know you're being sarcastic (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), but buying elections is no more democratic than the current system we have in place.

Yeah hence why it was sarcastic.

Katzztar

This was from a few days ago (Nov. 30) I just now seen it.
Pakistan’s surprisingly candid readout of Trump’s phone call with prime minister tells how smoozy Trump acts with other leaders. Here he's lavishing on praise of how amazing and wonderful job the Pakistani PM is doing that's so thick and false-sounding I'm reminded of a scene from Harry Potter book 2 where the Dursleys entertain the Masons … yes its that false and oily.

What is so interesting (beyond that falseness) is that it contradicts (yet again, surprise!…not) something Trump has said before. I remember an article from during the campaign when Trump told a Hindu contrabutor that Pakistan cannot be trusted.

I know it's no surprise to many here but still wanted to say it, together these two articles show how Trump just kiss ass to certain foreign leaders - I don't mean play nice aka its-normal-politics-to-be-civil, but actual suck-up and praise ala Dursley style .

RoboBlue

This was a very interesting debate:

Cyclone_Baroness

Oh lord. "I don't see color." Trevor handled this very well. I hadn't watched the Daily Show in full since Jon left.

This person is very misguided. She's very much prejudiced but really can't see it. Trevor really pointed out the main problem with people's views on protesting either silently or vocally will always be met with opposition and people feeling offended that people dare to speak out in anyway. She's not very good at actually listening or absorbing what's being said by people like Kapernick even if they state it plainly, what their objections are.

She has a lot of logical blindspots.

taboo

@Insider2000:

[qimg]https://66.media.tumblr.com/3bfc8f4393b2d4385fd67da97f1703a7/tumblr_o3vl82xdsP1u72uw5o6_250.jpg[/qimg]

hey meteor man fucking rules

Katzztar

@RoboBlue:

This was a very interesting debate:

Hahahaha I wonder if she has same view of people accepting the election and stop protesting back in 2012 and Obama was re-elected. Remember that Trump didn't accept that election and tweeted people should march to Washington DC.

WTF did she really compare BLM to the KKK?

Silence

@RoboBlue:

This was a very interesting debate:

What's interesting about it depends entirely on where you're standing.

"This makes white people ecstatic.

What they got to witness was the open-minded discussion they’ve been clamoring for since Trump became President-elect. Fans of erasing identity politics who feel the need to reach across the aisle to white people who have no problem voting for a racist absolutely loved watching this debate. And I’ve seen far too many articles celebrating the back-and-forth as some sort of prototype for future discussion. Because, to them, this was a fair exchange of ideas. Noah got his jabs in. Lahren was made to look somewhat silly. Nothing changes and everyone can laugh at the traffic light joke and move on.

But here’s the problem. Lahren and Noah didn’t just have a debate with an equal exchange of ideas. They weren’t debating how to increase GDP or who’s the best team in the NFC. They debated topics that are literally life-threatening to people who look like Trevor Noah and me. Tomi Lahren spouted violent propaganda on national television while Noah tried to get her to value his black life. That’s not a healthy debate. That type of conversation shouldn’t be celebrated. And it damn sure isn’t Trevor Noah’s job to convince a white person why he shouldn’t die.

Tomi Lahren, in the course of 26 minutes, argued that black people are 18 times more likely to kill police (this statistic is nowhere to be found). That a liberation movement in America is tantamount to a group of people who murdered countless people over the course of the 20th century. That the same liberation movement has advocated for and succeeded in murdering police officers. All of these statements are literally life-threatening to black people. She’s saying things that contribute to the deaths of black folks across America. This is not just two people arguing political beliefs. This is one person defending his right to live on national television while a person with a dedicated following spouts lies about why he is a threat to society.

But to white people, whose lives aren’t in danger in the way Trevor Noah’s is, this was an entertaining joust that reaffirmed whatever stances they have on a multitude of issues and made them feel good about the belief that we can just talk away hatred without doing anything to actually deter it. And once again, the onus is placed on the black person to defend himself. If liberal white people are so delighted by the “demolition,” then they should feel just as happy to speak up and quell Lahren and her followers before she’s able to drop propaganda on a national TV audience. And damn sure before she says anything to a black person. The fact Trevor Noah was able to face Lahren on his show wasn’t as much a celebration of his ability to cordially talk to her as it was a failure by the same white people so delighted in the debate to check her and her hatred before it became a national phenomenon."

David Dennis, Jr., "White People Are A Little Too Damn Happy About Trevor Noah vs. Tomi Lahren"

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

Bet you anything her show has higher ratings than his in a year.

RoboBlue

Um… regardless of which side you think did better, Tomi wasn't advocating for the murder of black people. Similarly, Noah wasn't advocating for the murder of white people or cops; he condemned the violent protesters as "bad people".

CCC

@Silence:

What's interesting about it depends entirely on where you're standing.

You totally ninja'd me. Was about to post that article in reply.

That a piece of garbage like her is even given a platform on national TV and taken "seriously" is symptomatic of how fucked up everything is.

RoboBlue

@CCC:

That a piece of garbage like her is even given a platform on national TV is wrong.

What else has she said? I'm totally unfamiliar with her.

Cyclone_Baroness

@RoboBlue:

Um… regardless of which side you think did better, Tomi wasn't advocating for the murder of black people. Similarly, Noah wasn't advocating for the murder of white people or cops; he condemned the violent protesters as "bad people".

No but she was spreading a false narrative that hurts us people of color.

Silence

@RoboBlue:

Um… regardless of which side you think did better, Tomi wasn't advocating for the murder of black people. Similarly, Noah wasn't advocating for the murder of white people or cops; he condemned the violent protesters as "bad people".

I suppose if you don't think there's a direct correlation between a person with a platform making the argument that black people are violent & dangerous and the passive acceptance of circumstances that lead to their death.

Tomi Lahren is a terrible, virulently racist human being.

RoboBlue

@Silence:

I suppose if you don't think there's a direct correlation between a person with a platform making the argument that black people are violent & dangerous and the passive acceptance of circumstances that lead to their death.

That's a good point, and Noah's platform similarly claims that cops are violent and dangerous. That makes the debate a lot more frustrating in retrospect.

Cyclone_Baroness

Speaking on how a narrative skewed can poison minds.

Late night ramblings…
There lives, deep within the psyche of many non-Indigenous North Dakotans, a deep fear of Native people. I see it every time my husband walks through a parking lot and all the car locks go "click," "click," "click" in his wake. I see it in the eyes of the WalMart employees who follow me around the store. I hear it in the voices of the ranchers' wives who are too scared to walk from their car to the house without a firearm, for fear of water protectors attacking.

One day, on the front line of the fight to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline, I asked an officer, "Who are you defending? Is there some little old farmer couple standing behind you?" He giggled a little, and a look passed between us. He knew the truth."You're defending a pipeline being built by people who don't even live in North Dakota, and who don't give a shit about our people and water."

North Dakota law enforcement has purposefully fed the existing fear of Native people, morphing it from mild suspicion to full fledged terror. In the minds of these fearful people, we were once quiet, invisible, and caged. Now we appear loud, opinionated, unrelenting, and free. That's scary for them. I see the looks on their faces as I walk through Bismarck...the looks have changed...now they're a mix of incredulity, anger, and "how dare they?!"

Hey North Dakota...your police force is lying to you because they do not serve you, they serve the oil industry.
#NoDAPL

Noah brought up the comparison of the police to her to show her that her thinking was flawed or at the very least a big double standard. We know not all cops are looking to adutition for Judge Dredd.

CCC

@RoboBlue:

What else has she said? I'm totally unfamiliar with her.

She doesn't have to say anything else outside of that interview to be considered scum, but let me show you to this site called wikipedia if you're really curious to learn more. It contains info and links and stuff:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomi_Lahren

@RoboBlue:

That's a good point, and Noah's platform similarly claims that cops are violent and dangerous.

Because enough cops are violent and dangerous that black people literally have to fear for their lives when they step out the door. That's fact. Not a fucking "platform." What America do you live in.

No. Stop. What am I doing. I said no more engaging with Robo. It's upsettingly pointless. FFFFFFFF.

RoboBlue

@Cyclone_Baroness:

Noah brought up the comparison of the police to her to show her that her thinking was flawed or at the very least a big double standard. We know not all cops are looking to adutition for Judge Dredd.

He's supporting Black Lives Matter as a movement, which does focus on all cops being part of the problem.

You obviously know that not all cops are bad, but I constantly hear stuff like this:
@CCC:

Because cops are violent and dangerous lol. What America do you live in.

There are major issues with cops killing people that really need to be resolved, but the rhetoric has gotten really rotten over the last year or so.

CCC

Do you acknowledge the existence of white privilege? Can you define it? Honest question.
I feel like that might be the crux of the problem.

@RoboBlue:

There are major issues with cops killing people that really need to be resolved, but the rhetoric has gotten really rotten over the last year or so.

Black lives matter infinity times more than any amount of rhetoric.

And nice job switching back to my pre-edited post. The clarification was obviously intentional and important.

STOP ENGAGING. WHYYYY

RoboBlue

@CCC:

Do you believe in white privilege? Can you define it? Honest question.
I feel like that might be the crux of the problem.

STOP ENGAGING. WHYYYY

I believe in wealth privilege. White people are treated differently by racists, but it's hard for me to say how widespread the problem (white supremacy or xenophobia) is or how much anti-white racist counterbalance it.

It would be more accurate to break down the number of hate crimes against each group and argue that white people's lives suck less on average because they suffer from fewer hate crimes (which is probably true, but I haven't compiled the data). The fact that almost no one is seriously complaining that Asian privilege is an issue, even though they have higher income and education rates on average, makes me question the validity of the concept.

benjamminbrown

But privilege can go both ways!

CCC

The witness does not acknowledge white privilege, and all problems stem from that. He seems to want to equate privilege with the single statistic: "rate of suffering from hate crimes."
I rest my case, your honor.

Let's break and go to lunch.

RoboBlue

@CCC:

And nice job switching back to my pre-edited post. The clarification was obviously intentional and important.

That was the version I was using as an example. I'm glad that you later clarified, and I'm not judging you for making a mistake and then changing your mind about it, but an awful lot of people seriously do believe that all cops are bad.

@CCC:

The witness does not acknowledge white privilege, and all problems stem from that. He seems to want to equate privilege with the single statistic: "rate of suffering from hate crimes."
I rest my case, your honor.

Let's break and go to lunch.

Meaning… what? How else can privilege be legitimately described, if not as how a group is treated by the community?

Why the extreme sarcasm?

benjamminbrown

Exactly, and treatment always boils down to how much money you make and hate crimes, right Robo?

RoboBlue

@benjamminbrown:

Exactly, and treatment always boils down to how much money you make and hate crimes, right Robo?

Those are things that statistics are readily available for. Obviously there are other factors.

Cyclone_Baroness

@RoboBlue:

He's supporting Black Lives Matter as a movement, which does focus on all cops being part of the problem.

You obviously know that not all cops are bad, but I constantly hear stuff like this:

There are major issues with cops killing people that really need to be resolved, but the rhetoric has gotten really rotten over the last year or so.

Cops killing people often on camera without proper reason as a reaction to the slightest and sometimes nonexistent offense isn't something you think BLM should make known or try to change?

I urge you to really listen and try to understand. This is not people making up a boogey man. This is bad cops being protected through an extremely flawed "justice system." Hardly any of the cops that have wrongfully killed unarmed black people have neither been charged or convicted. I could end up dead and nothing would be done. I'd be another name added to the growing list.

I have slightly better odds than some black people because I'm lighter skinned an female. But I'm not not going to be hyper aware of what's happening to people in my shoes.

I know conservatives hate that liberals use emotion yo make a point. But it's not less valid in this issue when dealing with another social construct that influences millions of people. It's not always tangible to people who are cis white male and hetero. There are many who actually have diverse friends and acquaintances that they might have a broader view of life. They are aware that our system isn't designed for others to succeed to our fullest without conforming. I'd say we can be seen but not heard but some people don't even want to see us.

As a black woman I have to behave in particular ways in public that would not be expected of my white friends. They know this I know this.

Sorry for any weird typos writing on my phone is hard and I have a lot to say.

But Robo please just listen when your fellow Parkians give you examples and proof of how screwed up it is out there. You almost always come back at us with. "Well what about…" I've no doubt some of what you say happens is true to some extent. But it's also very different when you're the one who will never be in full control of your own life.

CCC

@RoboBlue:

Why the extreme sarcasm?

Because it's finally over. This revelation explains everything about your unfathomable, eyebrow-raising positions over the last 50+ pages of this thread. It's the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle. The unplugged toaster cord. It explains why we've never gotten through to you. There's actually no more point in even trying, because you're missing the most fundamental, core axiom that every argument here needs as a foundation if the participants are to be even remotely on the same page.

Finally knowing that is…freeing.

@RoboBlue:

No one's going to be convinced to join a cause by being called "privileged", though.

He still doesn't get it.

The theory holds! Eureka!

RoboBlue

@Cyclone_Baroness:

But Robo please just listen when your fellow Parkians give you examples and proof of how screwed up it is out there. You almost always come back at us with. "Well what about…" I've no doubt some of what you say happens is true to some extent. But it's also very different when you're the one who will never be in full control of your own life.

I'm aware that it is a serious issue, and really cops need to be killing far fewer people in general.

No one's going to be convinced to join a cause by being called "scum" or "privileged", though.

@Cyclone_Baroness:

As a black woman I have to behave in particular ways in public that would not be expected of my white friends. They know this I know this.

How, specifically? I've been repeatedly stopped by cops who lied to me in attempts to extort money or arrest me, so I do know dangerous asshole cops exist.

@CCC:

Because it's finally over. This revelation explains everything about your unfathomable, eyebrow-raising positions over the last 50+ pages of this thread. It's the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle. The unplugged toaster cord. It explains why we've never gotten through to you. There's actually no more point in even trying, because you're missing the most fundamental, core axiom that every argument here needs as a foundation if the participants are to be even remotely on the same page.

Finally knowing that is…freeing.

So… are you saying that I'm a bad person because I'm not a believer?

I don't remember most arguments here revolving around white privilege.

@CCC:

He still doesn't get it.

The theory holds! Eureka!

"Insulting people won't get them to agree with you." "He still doesn't get it."

???

wolfwood

@CCC:

Because it's finally over. This revelation explains everything about your unfathomable, eyebrow-raising positions over the last 50+ pages of this thread. It's the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle. The unplugged toaster cord. It explains why we've never gotten through to you. There's actually no more point in even trying, because you're missing the most fundamental, core axiom that every argument here needs as a foundation if the participants are to be even remotely on the same page.

Finally knowing that is…freeing.

Isn't that what both irritates you and keeps drawing you back into the conversation? There can be something worthwhile to having a conversation with someone who's not coming from your own background and understanding. Even if it's annoying and you can't fathom how he can be like he is. And how it's most likely not going to come to some magic revelation moment where he sees the light.