Bay 12 Games Forum

Remember neonivek (he wasn't really a troll I guess, it just always felt like he was posting from another dimension)

Da's harsh, man. Neo was a horribly frustrating person to have an argument with because they constantly moved the goalposts, but they tended to take bizarre positions in an effort to play devil's advocate, I felt.

They just had a tendency to take that way beyond what was necessary and got banned. "Deliberately obtuse" is among the reasons they were banned for a reason.

Quote from: Arx on March 17, 2021, 01:14:47 pm

I do want to point out quickly that this may be a slight breach of NDA but if you get a high enough membership level you do unlock access to Various Nonsense and the MLP thread.

This entire forum is Various Nonsense

Boy, you don't know jack.

But with all that BIG MAD and the combined might of a republican controlled presidency, senate, congress, and even judicial he managed to accomplish... basically diddly squat.

Despite that, and the fact he currently doesn't technically have a spot in the Republican party, party officials are still kow-towing to him because if he shuns them nobody will vote for them.

Quote from: JoshuaFH on March 15, 2021, 04:51:10 pm

It's time to just give up and vote Vermin Supreme Trump for President.

A surprising amount of Americans in 2016, angrily flailing about because their system won't help them.  Look what it got them.

Everything they ever wanted in a president?

I have spent an inordinate amount of time looking for people’s experience of FATAL on the interwebs over the past few days.

I could just download the book, but I like my devices and don’t want to dispose of them.

I also came across someone saying that you could print it out and burn it, but that would be an insult to fire, which I quite enjoyed.

Apparently the creators of the game thought they were being highbrow. At least one of them claims as such, anyway.

It’s pretty bad on the Beeb website too.

I assume it’s autocorrected and either it doesn’t get proofread prior to publication, or whoever proofreads it sucks, or is otherwise autocorrected.

That's why you base these things on wealth instead of race. If any group is overrepresented in relation to their capita in that target group then they still benefit correspondingly more.

And yes, it's racist. It's literally making legislation based on race. You can argue that not all racism is bad, but you can't argue that that isn't racist.

What is the alternative?

Non-whites in the US have been discriminated against for literally centuries and that discrimination is built into the DNA of the various arms of government from the national right on down to the local level. The country was built on it, frankly.

With that in mind:

All in all this just showcases how internalized racist liberalism is in the American "left". Can't conquer unless you keep dividing. Have to keep sowing hate between white and black poor people.

You and I both know I lack the necessary tact and ability to challenge this adequately, but I can’t really leave it.

The left in this very specific instance are trying to raise non-white poor people (as well as some poor white people, mind you) up to the level of white poor people. It’s difficult for me to accept a position that argues against helping someone take a few steps forward when they start 10 steps behind the starting line because it is disadvantageous to someone who started on the line.

At the risk of being accused of what-aboutism, Republicans across the land are attempting to suppress the vote by passing legislation to limit access to absentee ballots. That’s going to affect non-white people a lot more, both in terms of their ability to vote as well as the quality of candidates who stand (if a certain demographic won’t or can’t vote, you won my waste time trying to appeal to them).

On the one hand you have the left treating non-whites differently because they’ve been treated as subhuman for hundreds of years, while you had the right treating them differently because, so far as I can tell, they don’t gain anything from supporting them, what with less than a fifth of registered Republican voters being non-white, according to Pew Research Center.

In the recent bill there is a clause that forgives debt of socially-disadvantaged farmers. What exactly does that mean here? If it's only for, I don't know, black farmers regardless of their actual condition then it's racist.

I don't care about race, if someone is poor then they need aid no matter their skin color.

That’s rather the point of the phrase “socially disadvantaged”, though. It includes groups that were discriminated against for racial and ethnic identities, plus veterans, plus women, according to the USDA website.

It’s still within living memory that there were actual laws discriminating against non-whites, and we have just had a US president that emboldened white supremacist groups in the US. Also fucked over farmers with his trade war, but Republicans didn’t care when they had to almost triple aid for farmers to offset the damage that did.

Anyhow, socially-disadvantaged farmers tend to be of the small-to-medium variety rather than the corporate owned:


Ninja’d, but sure.