I find it incredibly ironic that you are accusing all Trump supporters of being rascists and then you decide to claim the fact that they are white as a negative trait
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016
- Thread starter Lacius
- Start date
- Views 165,550
- Replies 2,620
- Likes 5
- Status
Yes, Trump supporters *deserve* to have stones thrown at them. Because they are ALL either uninformed people, or AWFUL people. It's not about "dissenting opinion", it's about having basic human decency toward groups of people. It's not a differing opinion when you attack things like gay marriage and abortion, it's hateful, and also NONE OF YOUR GOD DAMNED BUSINESS!
Last edited by Pikm,
I'm willing to bet those rolled up tubes of paper in the corner are construction blueprints for his "Great Wall of Mexico".
White is a negative trait, especially considering things on the white people resume, which includes;
- Fucking up Africa
- Fucking up the Americas
- Fucking up India
- Fucking up pretty much the entire world
- Enslaving black people for a few centuries
- Taking over countries to steal their resources
Now, because of these things, white people can't ACTUALLY experience racism. Because we fucked up the world.
Last edited by Pikm,
See? If you're not like me, you should be killed. Textbook Nazi. Well done, great way to achieve equality - just kill everyone who you feel isn't your equal. I mean, it worked for Hitler, so it's tried and true.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 1,275
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 30
- Location
- Chillin' with Bob Ross
- XP
- 1,112
- Country
If people write-in Bernie with the nominees being Hillary or Trump, Trump wins, because writing him in will completely split the democratic vote, giving ALL of the republican votes to Trump. Either way, we're screwed.
EDIT: Because personally, we don't think we need a chubby racist cheeto with a toupee in office, nor a corrupt politician who's under FBI investigation.
Last edited by Selim873,
Thank you for attributing all these things that I had no part in to the colour of my skin which I didn't choose. Good show.
Yikes, you might want to look at what you're writing before you post... You're beginning to sound a bit like the people you're condemning...
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
I do know a few Republicans who either won't be voting or will write in Marco Rubio, so that's not entirely true, but yeah it's basically guaranteed that if Hillary doesn't win, Trump will
Ooh, but you inherited the world that white people fucked up, and as a white person, the problems your predecessors' created become your own.
What you said is by definition rascist. Rascism isn't isn't exclusive to one group or another. Nobody living today took part in any of those things. in what way are they responsible
Lol, I love how you got all your facts mixed around and fucked up. In case you didn't notice, Trump is the one with the fascist and authoritarian ideas.
No, I'm not responsible for the actions of my predecessors, or all white people as a race. Collective responsibility is something straight up from the totalitarian mindset - very conducive to freedom and democracy, right? I'm an individual and I'm only accountable for what I do. Thank you for exposing yourself as a racist in your anti-racist tirade though.
It's not radical to expect businesses providing public goods and services to provide goods and services to the public. History shows us what happens when businesses are allowed to arbitrarily discriminate. The right of the consumer to be able to get the same goods and services as the rest of the public outweighs the right of the business owner to arbitrarily withhold goods and services from specific groups of people.
Racism is actually exclusive to any group but white people in this world. It's really not about white people can't experience racism, it's more accurate to say white people WILL NEVER experience racism.
I've had enough. I find it particularly ignorant that you would EVEN ATTEMPT to pull the racism card after you essentially blamed the entirety of the worlds problems on "whitey"... I mean come the fuck on bro. What kind of shit is it you're smoking. I want in.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 2,714
- Trophies
- 2
- Age
- 49
- Location
- Another Huxleyian Dystopia
- XP
- 3,549
- Country
Aghh, the great god of "experts say", "polls suggest", and "computer simulations state"...
As I stated before, if such information could be predicted they could use it for more useful thing, like extending and saving lives, preparing a child to deal with tendencies of hostility and what not, and so on. Assuming there was such a science that could gauge one's tastes, habits, and the like, which manifest as we grow and interact with our environment through the 5 senses, and thus interpret the world as such, unless we've some how grown up devoid of any external conditioning or at the very least, minimal, which is near impossible in this media age, and thus making it near impossible to conduct such a study, as the purity needed in conditions would be boarder line illegal if not illegal by today's standards, and certainly would not please the humanists.
This brings to mind another aspect of all of this business, and that is the technologies (and their histories) of polls, and statistics, and how they have been applied, especially through out the 20th century and beyond.
Unless one was well on this origin story in the 19th century on into the early 20th century, one might find it ludicrous to suggest that the modern humanist movement has a common history of the theory of black inferiority and of black extermination. Perhaps you have heard of Eugenics? Perhaps you have heard of Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton? Or how about his friend who first developed the idea of an "IQ" test; Lewis Terman?
How about the fact that everything we know about one another is generally reduced to mere yes or no questions?
Mr. Neil Postman can probably explain this better than I...
Typically, pollsters ask questions that will elicit yes or no answers. Is it necessary to point out that such answers do not give a robust meaning to the phrase “public opinion”? Were you, for example, to answer “No” to the question “Do you think the drug problem can be reduced by government programs?” one would hardly know much of interest or value about your opinion. But allowing you to speak or write at length on the matter would, of course, rule out using statistics. The point is that the use of statistics in polling changes the meaning of “public opinion” as dramatically as television changes the meaning of “political debate.” In the American Technopoly, public opinion is a yes or no answer to an unexamined question.
"Generally, polling ignores what people know about the subjects they are queried on. In a culture that is not obsessed with measuring and ranking things, this omission would probably be regarded as bizarre. But let us imagine what we would think of opinion polls if the questions came in pairs, indicating what people “believe” and what they “know” about the subject. If I may make up some figures, let us suppose we read the following: “The latest poll indicates that 72 percent of the American public believes we should withdraw economic aid from Nicaragua. Of those who expressed this opinion, 28 percent thought Nicaragua was in central Asia, 18 percent thought it was an island near New Zealand, and 27.4 percent believed that ‘Africans should help themselves,’ obviously confusing Nicaragua with Nigeria. Moreover, of those polled, 61.8 percent did not know that we give economic aid to Nicaragua, and 23 percent did not know what ‘economic aid’ means.” Were pollsters inclined to provide such information, the prestige and power of polling would be considerably reduced. Perhaps even congressmen, confronted by massive ignorance, would invest their own understandings with greater trust."
- Neil Postman ( Technopoly 1992)
He goes on elsewhere in his book to note this observation:
I have been in the presence of a group of United States congressmen who were gathered to discuss, over a period of two days, what might be done to make the future of America more survivable and, if possible, more humane. Ten consultants were called upon to offer perspectives and advice. Eight of them were pollsters. They spoke of the “trends” their polling uncovered; for example, that people were no longer interested in the women’s movement, did not regard environmental issues as of paramount importance, did not think the “drug problem” was getting worse, and so on. It was apparent, at once, that these polling results would become the basis of how the congressmen thought the future should be managed. The ideas the congressmen had (all men, by the way) receded to the background. Their own perceptions, instincts, insights, and experience paled into irrelevance. Confronted by “social scientists,” they were inclined to do what the “trends” suggested would satisfy the populace.
As I stated before, if such information could be predicted they could use it for more useful thing, like extending and saving lives, preparing a child to deal with tendencies of hostility and what not, and so on. Assuming there was such a science that could gauge one's tastes, habits, and the like, which manifest as we grow and interact with our environment through the 5 senses, and thus interpret the world as such, unless we've some how grown up devoid of any external conditioning or at the very least, minimal, which is near impossible in this media age, and thus making it near impossible to conduct such a study, as the purity needed in conditions would be boarder line illegal if not illegal by today's standards, and certainly would not please the humanists.
This brings to mind another aspect of all of this business, and that is the technologies (and their histories) of polls, and statistics, and how they have been applied, especially through out the 20th century and beyond.
Unless one was well on this origin story in the 19th century on into the early 20th century, one might find it ludicrous to suggest that the modern humanist movement has a common history of the theory of black inferiority and of black extermination. Perhaps you have heard of Eugenics? Perhaps you have heard of Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton? Or how about his friend who first developed the idea of an "IQ" test; Lewis Terman?
How about the fact that everything we know about one another is generally reduced to mere yes or no questions?
Mr. Neil Postman can probably explain this better than I...
Typically, pollsters ask questions that will elicit yes or no answers. Is it necessary to point out that such answers do not give a robust meaning to the phrase “public opinion”? Were you, for example, to answer “No” to the question “Do you think the drug problem can be reduced by government programs?” one would hardly know much of interest or value about your opinion. But allowing you to speak or write at length on the matter would, of course, rule out using statistics. The point is that the use of statistics in polling changes the meaning of “public opinion” as dramatically as television changes the meaning of “political debate.” In the American Technopoly, public opinion is a yes or no answer to an unexamined question.
"Generally, polling ignores what people know about the subjects they are queried on. In a culture that is not obsessed with measuring and ranking things, this omission would probably be regarded as bizarre. But let us imagine what we would think of opinion polls if the questions came in pairs, indicating what people “believe” and what they “know” about the subject. If I may make up some figures, let us suppose we read the following: “The latest poll indicates that 72 percent of the American public believes we should withdraw economic aid from Nicaragua. Of those who expressed this opinion, 28 percent thought Nicaragua was in central Asia, 18 percent thought it was an island near New Zealand, and 27.4 percent believed that ‘Africans should help themselves,’ obviously confusing Nicaragua with Nigeria. Moreover, of those polled, 61.8 percent did not know that we give economic aid to Nicaragua, and 23 percent did not know what ‘economic aid’ means.” Were pollsters inclined to provide such information, the prestige and power of polling would be considerably reduced. Perhaps even congressmen, confronted by massive ignorance, would invest their own understandings with greater trust."
- Neil Postman ( Technopoly 1992)
He goes on elsewhere in his book to note this observation:
I have been in the presence of a group of United States congressmen who were gathered to discuss, over a period of two days, what might be done to make the future of America more survivable and, if possible, more humane. Ten consultants were called upon to offer perspectives and advice. Eight of them were pollsters. They spoke of the “trends” their polling uncovered; for example, that people were no longer interested in the women’s movement, did not regard environmental issues as of paramount importance, did not think the “drug problem” was getting worse, and so on. It was apparent, at once, that these polling results would become the basis of how the congressmen thought the future should be managed. The ideas the congressmen had (all men, by the way) receded to the background. Their own perceptions, instincts, insights, and experience paled into irrelevance. Confronted by “social scientists,” they were inclined to do what the “trends” suggested would satisfy the populace.
White people fucked up the world. Explain why they didn't if you want to actually contribute to the discussion.
- Status
Similar threads
-
- Poll
-
- Poll
