13892 pts ยท November 19, 2014
This is your public profile. Write something about yourself No.
Eh, to be fair, that entire region is a damn fine reason to never stop stomping communists to death.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-commentary/opinion-cancel-culture-is-good-for-democracy-1234681224/
Oh, you'll bounce right back.
You're trying to reason with ideologues. And, since you do not enthusiastically endorse their position, you are in their mind automatically a transphobe. Therefore a bigot. Basically Hitler. You're now an alt-right superfascist hypernazi and any violence or vile behaviour against you is now justified and actually self defense to them. Imgur is highly ideologically captured and homogenised.
Fun thing, most voters who voted for this are going: "Yes, good, audit them all, no more corrupt party protection bullshit, plug all the holes!"
It is not enough to be anti-communist, you have to be actively anti-communist. It's why I like communists. They are the prime source and producer of good communists.
If you believe that, you believe that. May you eventually come to the realisation that you have been lied to. And the communist ideal is only functional as long as a perfect system without any possible corruption is assumed. It is an utopia, that will never be achieved. It denies human nature. I will posit, it can work in small communities, in which participation is voluntary and one can leave. It won't work in larger communities, and even small ones are extremely vulnerable to corruption.
Bud, fascism and communism are two sides on the same coin. The reason communism is worse is very simple: there's fuck all fascists anymore and the ideology is discredited. There's tons of communists still around, and they are as murderous as ever. And as delusional as ever. No iteration of communism was ever actually communism, to them. That it fails was not any inherent flaw in the ideology, it's always outside forces, to them. Communists are far more dangerous nowadays than fascists.
Okay, fascist. After all, you argue for more state-enforced discrimination on racial, sexual, and gender categories. Sounds fascist to me. (That, btw, IS a strawman, as I do not think that you are actually fascist. Maybe communist, which would be worse.) And I will consider us at an impasse as to who is correct on the issue, c'est la vie. Equity means equality of outcome. The only way to achieve that is by authoritarian means. You understand just enough of what I say to misrepresent it. A pity.
Then you can't want equity. As it means equality of outcome. Not of opportunity. In a system such as ours, in which we have finite resources, to enforce an equality of outcome you have to unequally reward those that do less. I want people to have the same chance no matter who they are. Equity means people get the same outcome, no matter who they are or what they do. And with finite resources, that means you have to take from those who make or earn more.
And that's where you are wrong. Not a strawman, simply applying the premise of equity as a desireable outcome to a logical conclusion. The only way you can achieve equity is by either actively discriminating or by regulation, which simply shifts the discrimination into the ownership of the government. Bad idea, that, either way. Equity is the battlecry of authoritarian assholes. So, forgive me that my opposition to something that is authoritarian, racist, sexist, makes me smug. And righteous.
Wage Gap: debunked BS, better called Earnings Gap. Systemic disadvantagement of white ppl to meet diversity quotas: has happened, is happening, is wrong. If one pursues equity only where it brings advantage to the pursuer, said pursuer is not interested in equity, only in justifying their racism/sexism and feeling morally superior in it. DEI as a whole is a justification to be a bigot while feeling smug and righteous about it. My argument being ridiculous on purpose: congratz, starting to get it
Do more men die in workplace accidents then women, yes or no? Is this predicated due to the frequency with which men and women chose to work in a job that has a higher risk of a fatality due to the inherent factors of the job, risks that are *impossible* to fully mitigate, yes or no? Is this an equitable outcome, yes or no? Is your solution an equitable solution, yes or no? Do you consider equity, or equality of outcome, to be a reasonable and good goal to pursue in all aspects, yes or no?
Are you done, trying to push your Chewbacca defense? You have made an argument that is not in relation to my argument. You are so far off the field for my argument, you can't see the stadium, while trying to push your imaginary goalpost. I understand your argument. You want more workplace safety. Cool. You don't understand mine, because mine is not about workplace safety, it is about the application of equity and its pitfalls. You trying to make it about safety shows your lack of understanding.
Yes, and if your mum had a dick she'd be your dad. If fishes rode bicycles, they'd probably wear those twatty neoprene suits, too. If your argument had any resemblance to reality, I'd consider you capable of making a point. But you still refuse to think and understand my argument. You are beyond help, and proof of nonsentient human life, capable only of parroting phrases, not thinking for yourself. I pity you.
The reason why I say that you do not understand my argument, is that it is as follows: the standard of equity and pursuit thereof is ridiculous and will backfire badly eventually. I am taking the principle of equity, as demanded, to the hyperbolic interpretation ad absurdum to ridicule it. I do not believe in this crap, and I don't want it. And those who want it more often than not have NO idea what they are actually asking for or what the consequences can be. Sorry for expecting you to think.
I can use this logic to argue for other things. More male teachers. More male gynecologists. More male hair stylists. Any field of work in which men are underrepresented. Or where women are underrepresented. We need more female garbage collectors, taxi drivers, more male prostitutes, male cashiers, male secretaries, female truck drivers, female soldiers, male kindergarten teachers... unless it is 50/50 the principle of equity demands correction.
You still do not understand my argument. Ex: 100 people die, per year, worldwide, in a workplace fatality. These occur despite any and all safety measures, practices, and so on you have put in place to prevent them. 5 of these people are women. By the logic of social justice, and the practice of equity, this is a proof of systemic sexism against men. Therefore, to achieve equity, next year, either 45 women need to die in place of a man, or 90 more women need to die, to achieve equity.
You do not understand the argument. You are instead trying to shift it to something that is not part of the argument. But, I shall humour you. The only reality in which your argument holds is one where there is no workplace fatalities. Zero. This is a statistical impossibility. There is always a potentially fatal, unforeseen circumstance lurking in this universe. Murphy's Law applies totally. Therefore, your argument is rendered moot in our reality.
Congratz, you don't understand percentages. A man is much more likely to be killed due to a workplace accident. So, since we need to work for equity, we need to ensure that more women die in the workplace by forcing them to work in dangerous jobs more often. Because, according to the argumentation for equity, this result must be because of systemic sexism, men are being oppressed, and we have to regulate to the detriment of women to solve this problem.
I can offer more examples, like sewer management, garbage collection, you know, "dirty" jobs that women are extremely underrepresented in. My point is, if you want state-enforced equity, you have to be prepared to lose the ability to chose your place of employment, or your career. "Oh yes, you may want to become a veterinarian, but we need to fill the quota for female bricklayers, so, that's what you'll do. Oh, you're nonbinary? Wonderful, we shall allocate you to highway maintenance, instead."
Diversity, equity, inclusion. Nice sounding words. Implemented in a racist, sexist, bigotted manner, I oppose them strongly. Equity I will oppose fundamentally. Because people who yell for equity do not want equity. They want equity where it benefits them, nowhere else. True equity is advocating for more dead women. Until at least 50% of workplace fatality is female, I do not want sob stories about the C-suite. That's equity. If this offends you, it's only because you are sexist against men.
Only so long as you can demand that anyone able to deny you something you need with "you could just choose to die, that's more affordable for the system" goes and let's themselves get offed, first. And you have the option to bow out after they have shuffled off.Looking at you, Canada.
I cast "Twist &Shout!" . . . *testicular torsion happens*
Never, ever, put a chainmail coif on your head without a layer of cloth between it and your hair. Unless you like ripping it out in chunks, I guess.
He is sheltering braincell refugees that have fled orange cats. The problem is, they are orange cat braincells.
Repair Ticket created for: Log-In-Issues.
I will have you know, that Deutsche Bahn is only embattled by four minor problems. They are called Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter.
It's the hair. It just does not belong.
Probably more a FUIYOOOO moment.
Eh, to be fair, that entire region is a damn fine reason to never stop stomping communists to death.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-commentary/opinion-cancel-culture-is-good-for-democracy-1234681224/
Oh, you'll bounce right back.
You're trying to reason with ideologues. And, since you do not enthusiastically endorse their position, you are in their mind automatically a transphobe. Therefore a bigot. Basically Hitler. You're now an alt-right superfascist hypernazi and any violence or vile behaviour against you is now justified and actually self defense to them. Imgur is highly ideologically captured and homogenised.
Fun thing, most voters who voted for this are going: "Yes, good, audit them all, no more corrupt party protection bullshit, plug all the holes!"
It is not enough to be anti-communist, you have to be actively anti-communist. It's why I like communists. They are the prime source and producer of good communists.
If you believe that, you believe that. May you eventually come to the realisation that you have been lied to. And the communist ideal is only functional as long as a perfect system without any possible corruption is assumed. It is an utopia, that will never be achieved. It denies human nature. I will posit, it can work in small communities, in which participation is voluntary and one can leave. It won't work in larger communities, and even small ones are extremely vulnerable to corruption.
Bud, fascism and communism are two sides on the same coin. The reason communism is worse is very simple: there's fuck all fascists anymore and the ideology is discredited. There's tons of communists still around, and they are as murderous as ever. And as delusional as ever. No iteration of communism was ever actually communism, to them. That it fails was not any inherent flaw in the ideology, it's always outside forces, to them. Communists are far more dangerous nowadays than fascists.
Okay, fascist. After all, you argue for more state-enforced discrimination on racial, sexual, and gender categories. Sounds fascist to me. (That, btw, IS a strawman, as I do not think that you are actually fascist. Maybe communist, which would be worse.) And I will consider us at an impasse as to who is correct on the issue, c'est la vie. Equity means equality of outcome. The only way to achieve that is by authoritarian means. You understand just enough of what I say to misrepresent it. A pity.
Then you can't want equity. As it means equality of outcome. Not of opportunity. In a system such as ours, in which we have finite resources, to enforce an equality of outcome you have to unequally reward those that do less. I want people to have the same chance no matter who they are. Equity means people get the same outcome, no matter who they are or what they do. And with finite resources, that means you have to take from those who make or earn more.
And that's where you are wrong. Not a strawman, simply applying the premise of equity as a desireable outcome to a logical conclusion. The only way you can achieve equity is by either actively discriminating or by regulation, which simply shifts the discrimination into the ownership of the government. Bad idea, that, either way. Equity is the battlecry of authoritarian assholes. So, forgive me that my opposition to something that is authoritarian, racist, sexist, makes me smug. And righteous.
Wage Gap: debunked BS, better called Earnings Gap. Systemic disadvantagement of white ppl to meet diversity quotas: has happened, is happening, is wrong. If one pursues equity only where it brings advantage to the pursuer, said pursuer is not interested in equity, only in justifying their racism/sexism and feeling morally superior in it. DEI as a whole is a justification to be a bigot while feeling smug and righteous about it. My argument being ridiculous on purpose: congratz, starting to get it
Do more men die in workplace accidents then women, yes or no? Is this predicated due to the frequency with which men and women chose to work in a job that has a higher risk of a fatality due to the inherent factors of the job, risks that are *impossible* to fully mitigate, yes or no? Is this an equitable outcome, yes or no? Is your solution an equitable solution, yes or no? Do you consider equity, or equality of outcome, to be a reasonable and good goal to pursue in all aspects, yes or no?
Are you done, trying to push your Chewbacca defense? You have made an argument that is not in relation to my argument. You are so far off the field for my argument, you can't see the stadium, while trying to push your imaginary goalpost. I understand your argument. You want more workplace safety. Cool. You don't understand mine, because mine is not about workplace safety, it is about the application of equity and its pitfalls. You trying to make it about safety shows your lack of understanding.
Yes, and if your mum had a dick she'd be your dad. If fishes rode bicycles, they'd probably wear those twatty neoprene suits, too. If your argument had any resemblance to reality, I'd consider you capable of making a point. But you still refuse to think and understand my argument. You are beyond help, and proof of nonsentient human life, capable only of parroting phrases, not thinking for yourself. I pity you.
The reason why I say that you do not understand my argument, is that it is as follows: the standard of equity and pursuit thereof is ridiculous and will backfire badly eventually. I am taking the principle of equity, as demanded, to the hyperbolic interpretation ad absurdum to ridicule it. I do not believe in this crap, and I don't want it. And those who want it more often than not have NO idea what they are actually asking for or what the consequences can be. Sorry for expecting you to think.
I can use this logic to argue for other things. More male teachers. More male gynecologists. More male hair stylists. Any field of work in which men are underrepresented. Or where women are underrepresented. We need more female garbage collectors, taxi drivers, more male prostitutes, male cashiers, male secretaries, female truck drivers, female soldiers, male kindergarten teachers... unless it is 50/50 the principle of equity demands correction.
You still do not understand my argument. Ex: 100 people die, per year, worldwide, in a workplace fatality. These occur despite any and all safety measures, practices, and so on you have put in place to prevent them. 5 of these people are women. By the logic of social justice, and the practice of equity, this is a proof of systemic sexism against men. Therefore, to achieve equity, next year, either 45 women need to die in place of a man, or 90 more women need to die, to achieve equity.
You do not understand the argument. You are instead trying to shift it to something that is not part of the argument. But, I shall humour you. The only reality in which your argument holds is one where there is no workplace fatalities. Zero. This is a statistical impossibility. There is always a potentially fatal, unforeseen circumstance lurking in this universe. Murphy's Law applies totally. Therefore, your argument is rendered moot in our reality.
Congratz, you don't understand percentages. A man is much more likely to be killed due to a workplace accident. So, since we need to work for equity, we need to ensure that more women die in the workplace by forcing them to work in dangerous jobs more often. Because, according to the argumentation for equity, this result must be because of systemic sexism, men are being oppressed, and we have to regulate to the detriment of women to solve this problem.
I can offer more examples, like sewer management, garbage collection, you know, "dirty" jobs that women are extremely underrepresented in. My point is, if you want state-enforced equity, you have to be prepared to lose the ability to chose your place of employment, or your career. "Oh yes, you may want to become a veterinarian, but we need to fill the quota for female bricklayers, so, that's what you'll do. Oh, you're nonbinary? Wonderful, we shall allocate you to highway maintenance, instead."
Diversity, equity, inclusion. Nice sounding words. Implemented in a racist, sexist, bigotted manner, I oppose them strongly. Equity I will oppose fundamentally. Because people who yell for equity do not want equity. They want equity where it benefits them, nowhere else. True equity is advocating for more dead women. Until at least 50% of workplace fatality is female, I do not want sob stories about the C-suite. That's equity. If this offends you, it's only because you are sexist against men.
Only so long as you can demand that anyone able to deny you something you need with "you could just choose to die, that's more affordable for the system" goes and let's themselves get offed, first. And you have the option to bow out after they have shuffled off.
Looking at you, Canada.
I cast "Twist &Shout!" . . . *testicular torsion happens*
Never, ever, put a chainmail coif on your head without a layer of cloth between it and your hair. Unless you like ripping it out in chunks, I guess.
He is sheltering braincell refugees that have fled orange cats. The problem is, they are orange cat braincells.
Repair Ticket created for: Log-In-Issues.
I will have you know, that Deutsche Bahn is only embattled by four minor problems. They are called Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter.
It's the hair. It just does not belong.
Probably more a FUIYOOOO moment.