-I actually have taught College Stats ane Econ. But I don't try to teach in here, just challenge bad arguments.
I get mistaken for black/pr/dr a lot so I ride hard for my dark melanin skin all day. I’ve been dealing with white liberals so long thinking they know the best but don’t understand CULTURE.
You’ve admitted that “supporting” Donald Trump was a mistake. Presumably, all the time and energy you wasted defending him here for the past few years was, thus, also in error.
Should we accept “both sides” of the slavery issue for the sake of “balance?”
I’m not okay with adding a dollop of racism to any discussion here.
But you are not black. So please don't demand some racial solidarity from me when we are not even the same race.
Genuine question ...
.. I ride for good (+) methYou’ve admitted that “supporting” Donald Trump was a mistake. Presumably, all the time and energy you wasted defending him here for the past few years was, thus, also in error.
So why are you still trying to act like Donald Trump never lied?
And you want to be treated like a “redemption story?!"
Amazing how you want us to believe you’ve “reformed,” and yet here you are on January 24th, 2021, still defending Donald Trump with far more zeal than you’ve yet mustered over this:
The Supreme Court Was Complicit In Donald Trump’s Execution Spree
Instead of acting as a safeguard, SCOTUS rubber-stamped the administration’s killings, sidestepping issues fundamental to the legality of the death penalty.www.huffpost.com
Should we accept “both sides” of the slavery issue for the sake of “balance?”
Is NikeTalk an “echo chamber” unless we legitimize Holocaust-denial?
Or is it okay if we recognize that one side of these particular “debates” is innately illegitimate and incompatible with the values central to our community?
Let’s acknowledge the false equivalence inherent in prioritizing one person’s “right” to dispute someone’s fundamental personhood over the rights of the group whose humanity is thus called into question.
Over the summer, I summarized NikeTalk's approach thusly:
That's basically what this comes down to: a request to establish parity between one group's right to safety with the privilege of an individual to spout hate speech or "playfully" challenge another group's humanity for the sake of alleviating boredom.
I’m not okay with adding a dollop of racism to any discussion here.
This was a driving reason for the creation of NikeTalk. We were fed up with the near constant harassment by White Supremacists on unmoderated sneaker message boards.
As NikeTalk has no ambition to monopolize online expression, we have every right to constrain members' speech to foster a safe and respectful community environment. We've chosen not to prioritize ideological diversity to the exclusion of demographic diversity.
There are still plenty of unmoderated and poorly moderated social media platforms to choose from for those who feel unfairly restricted by NikeTalk's prohibition of hate speech.
If you think that anti-racist policies are inherently anti-conservative, that is a far more damning statement about conservativism than it is about anti-racism.
..
Ok bruh, but their you got demanding solidarity from a white dude..
What solidarity did I demand, from who did I demand it, and for what cause am I demanding it for?
You’ve admitted that “supporting” Donald Trump was a mistake. Presumably, all the time and energy you wasted defending him here for the past few years was, thus, also in error.
So why are you still trying to act like Donald Trump never lied?
And you want to be treated like a “redemption story?!"
Amazing how you want us to believe you’ve “reformed,” and yet here you are on January 24th, 2021, still defending Donald Trump with far more zeal than you’ve yet mustered over this:
The Supreme Court Was Complicit In Donald Trump’s Execution Spree
Instead of acting as a safeguard, SCOTUS rubber-stamped the administration’s killings, sidestepping issues fundamental to the legality of the death penalty.
IATT
for his constant taunting. Nothing more should be read into it. Not defending Trump, as I said.
Idk.. you win bruh. My bad for the back and forth. I ride mainly for left wingers..,
I'm not acting like that. My post was directed specifically at
As it relates to the death penalty I am against it, period. In all cases. State or federal. And it doesn't matter who is in office.
You're perceiving the disagreements in this thread as strictly left/right when that's not accurate.
Take a step back here and remember WHY he was “taunting” you over your “definition of a lie.”I'm not acting like that. My post was directed specifically at
As it relates to the death penalty I am against it, period. In all cases. State or federal. And it doesn't matter who is in office.
www.independent.co.uk
I would make a joke to cut the tension, but I am trying to cut down on the demonic behavior
Rather than apologize for behavior in support of something/someone you now characterize as “a mistake,” you’re doubling down.
This, in my opinion, is why people seem to be more disgusted by your antics than those of the average Trump supporter. It’s assumed - to your “credit” - that you know better.
If you want to be treated as a “recovering” Trump supporter, the very first step is to admit you have a problem. You just skipped all introspection and accountability to instantly declare yourself “recovered.”
By defending Trump’s lies, you were complicit in this process:
The world's leading expert on Hitler refused to write about Trump for months. Then everything changed
President's 'views come out of a playbook written in German' says author — 'the playbook is Mein Kampf'
“Hitler’s method was to lie until he got what he wanted, by which point it was too late," Mr Rosenbaum said, adding there is no comparison between Hitler and Mr Trump in terms of scale. But, he said, it was important to see that, like Hitler, Mr Trump is "defining mendacity down" by normalising lies and lowering expectations of truthfulness.
While marchers and the courts have put up a fight after the Muslim ban, each new act, each new lie, accepted by default, seems less outrageous," Mr Rosenbaum said. "Let’s call it what it is: defining mendacity down.”
You have repeatedly attempted to not only define mendacity down, but to define racism down as well, all in defense of Donald Trump. Here you are, in 2021, refusing to desist in such efforts.
Do better.
Would you have preferred that he use the qualifier “allegedly” to denote his uncertainty regarding the substance of your claims?
Oh? Then what was the point of this if not to reassert the prior claim that Trump didn’t lie?
