We got way less Shaxs in later seasons :(

Let people have fun

This amounted to a total loss of 824,097,690 IQ points

What a useless figure compared to the 2.6 per capita given earlier

Fuck off Squid, I’m trying to enjoy my holiday. I have done nothing but participate in good faith. Not just as in a veneer of politeness, but truly to attempt to engage your real beliefs and express my own, fairly reasonable ones. But that’s proven impossible since you’ve been intent on doing nothing but make accusations, twist my words to the worst possible interpretations, nitpick irrelevant points, and respond only to attack my position rather than to understand it. You’ve barely even presented your own. If you want to imagine me as some racist crybaby who can’t handle your epic takedowns, go ahead, but don’t claim it as reality.

I know you’re not a lost cause, so I’ll leave you with some advice. Don’t assume everyone is your enemy. You’ll have a much more enjoyable time trying to engage and have a real conversation than trying to put others down. You might discover that the person you assumed the worst of has essentially the same position as you, just from a different perspective. Feel free to respond and take the last word; I won’t reply. I wouldn’t have replied to this either but it was especially hostile so I felt the need to chime in.

It’s something I’m somewhat interested in, and it’s fairly important. Maybe I’ll do some proper research on it the next time I have some free time. Thanks for the suggestion!

cranking 90s in fortnite

Haha nice. Hope you get some time to do a few rounds this season :)

Hi spujb. I had a very long debate about this already but feel free to discuss this through the lens of CRT without me. I’m not familiar enough with the specifics anyways.

being correct on the internet is my second favorite hobby

lmao. What’s your first?

Yup, there were people who protested the status quo and did not support the racist endeavors, and may not have been racist themselves. But from what I know of that period of history, it was rare. Note that I didn’t use the statements about the overall situation to assign blame to any particular person.

I’m not following your claim that I’m racist and I don’t really care to since you seem intent on repeatedly trying to call me racist and none of the previous claims have been accurate. Stop trying to “win” the argument, I’m already out. Take the opportunity to exit gracefully and enjoy the holiday season and move on.

It’s not an assumption, it’s supported by historical accounts and is reflected in our past actions. What are you arguing? That the historical genocide of native americans wasn’t partially based on large-scale racism? Stop trying to gotcha me and realize that you’re implying some pretty weird stuff.

Anyways, we’re just going around in circles. We’re not making much rhetorical progress. I’m now in the car on my way to Christmas so I think it’s time for me to take my leave instead of arguing about racism on the internet. Thanks for the convo, and happy Hanukkah if you celebrate.

It was revealed to me in a dream

To be serious, I very much doubt reliable polling data from the 1700s exists on this subject. If less people supported it than I thought, then it was less racist. It seems like most white people were fine with it though, so native americans pointing out that it happened is not racist, unless they’re applying that fault to an individual white person.

Your dev team and management cares about the players, that’s much better than terrible already

The ones making all the decisions? So just like now with U.S. politicians and Palestinians? Also U.S. politicians and sick people? Also U.S. politicians and the environment?

…yes…? And?

So just like now? Not seeing the difference yet.

I don’t know how to tell you this but if you don’t see the difference between 90% support with negligible resistance in the native american case, and 45-62% support (I’m dividing it based on education, not gender, since that makes more sense) with 35-51% opposition in the Trump case, you are so far from the reality that I see that you’ve reached escape velocity. In no world is a 10% lead “nearly all”.

Why are we ignoring white women? Your numbers aren’t quite as good in that department. Still >50%, but we seem to have gotten a bit narrower for no reason here, no?

Anyways, no, they aren’t racist, because white people did steal their land. They were the ones making all the decisions and they were overwhelmingly of the mind that native americans were a worse race. They perpetrated a literal racial genocide. Did they all do this? No, but they nearly all supported it. You can make the claim that the overwhelming majority of the entire race was racist and was totally on board with colonialism. So, you can say that the race, as a whole, is to blame. It would still be racist to blame an individual white person who had no part in the genocide. But the claim validly applies to the race as a whole, so it’s not racist to make under your own definition.

That’s very different from white people having a ~5% majority with very strong internal disagreements when they elected Trump.

1. You’re generalizing that trend to the whole race

2. You’re assigning all the blame to white people when other races also increased their support of Trump (eg. it doubled among black men)

3. Including the people who didn’t vote, I’m pretty sure every race has a majority of ignorant people, yet you only call white people troglodytes

In short, you’re making it more about race than it is. I propose the much more accurate delineation that uninformed people elected Trump. It’s valuable to note that white people did that the most, but with all the caveats above I think the generalization is unwarranted.

Facts aren’t racist, they’re facts. “80% of ___ commits ___ crime” is not racist if it’s true.

Ok, then you’re not racist for pointing out that white people are responsible for some horrible things. You would still be racist for calling them troglodytes though.

Why yes I do have a memory disorder, thanks for reminding me. I must’ve forgotten.

But, I think you’re confused about what I’m saying there. I’m not saying that the evolution of language is “based on statistics and aggregate numbers”, and I don’t see how it could be interpreted that way. I’m saying that language naturally evolves, and that the definition of racism that I see most commonly has evolved into including negative statements about a race based on factual statistics. For example, “80% of [insert race here] commits [insert type of crime here]”. Even if it were true, that would be considered racist. If you don’t agree, ok, I’ll use your definition.

Anyways, I’m not sure why I’m arguing about this. You literally agreed with a comment calling an entire race of people troglodytes who the op was ashamed to share their genetics with. I’m pretty sure it was satire. So. Yeah, idk what else to say here

I’m not nitpicking on the details, I’m pointing out you yourself said something which, in context, sure sounded bigoted to me.

I needed a way to refer to a racial group that could potentially be a part of a larger race. The word “subrace” would be accurate but sounds incredibly racey and probably has bad connotations that I’m not aware of so I used the example of a small, semi-distinct racial group potentially within a larger race. Many countries have small distinct racial groups, which seemed like the best example. Sue me.

And let’s see evidence of this “natural evolution” that involves statistics. That doesn’t sound like how language works to me.

Literally what does this even mean? What are you talking about??

Anyways, now that I’ve clarified my point you can stop nitpicking and respond to my actual argument. Or are you only interested in calling me a bigot?

The analogy still works if we’re talking about a race rather than a country. You’re nitpicking the details, not attacking the actual point being made. The point is that there is no such thing as a strict definition of race, but that such a thing isn’t necessary to talk about race as a concept. It would be like saying “you can’t say you like sandwiches unless you define what a sandwich is”. We all know on the internet that is an impossible definition, but we can still meaningfully talk about sandwiches.

Traditionally based on what? What tradition is this? Who made it a tradition?

The natural evolution of the English language as determined by multiple societies. I’m using the most common definition of racism that I know. No definition is kore valid than any other in theory, so if you want to explain what you think racism is I’ll switch to talking about your definition.

Traditionally racism that is based on statistics and aggregate numbers still counts. If someone were to say that black people are on average responsible for [insert problem here], even if it were true, that’s generally considered racist.

And, that’s a bit silly. I can call someone doing racist black caricatures racist against black people without knowing if some particular country’s population is generally considered to be black.

I mean I’m sure you agree that being against the state of Israel or being antizionist doesn’t make you antisemitic.

I don’t particularly know or care if the jewish people are “white” or not. Not really my place to say anyways I suppose.

Isn’t he orange