Raider5678

Alright. It was an attack. Gender was not used as a weapon though.

Except you asserted this as an absolute did you not?

This is assuming he considered saying idiot, then decided to say woman instead. I get the feeling that's probably not what happened, and that he simply said the first word that came to mind.

While I agree there was no kind intent, I see no reason why this should be treated any differently then if he had said something like "Stupid idiot" unless we can prove it was specifically done with the intention of using gender as an insult. And being intellectually honest, I can see the word "woman" being used as an identifier in that context, or as an insult aimed at women. So I don't think either of us can say with 100% certainty whether gender was used as a weapon or not. And agreed, while that type of contempt should be condemned, must we really condemn the man the same as if we knew for certain exactly what the meaning of the phrase was?

Defensive or offensive, I categorized that as having a big stick, which seemed to relate to the topic if my understanding of it is correct.

Ah, I see that now. I didn't understand exactly what he said before hand. My bad.

I'm not sure about what technology. https://slate.com/technology/2018/12/huawei-cfo-arrest-sanctions-iran.html This is the link where I heard about what he was alleged of doing. Specifically, this paragraph: That's what I heard. Additionally, it isn't espionage because they can't prove that the intent is to hurt America, only that they were knowingly selling technology to a company which they knew would sell it to Iran. That is, if they prove it. Ultimately I'll simply wait to see what the court decides. I don't see why people are getting so upset about the U.S. ordering his arrest. If he's guilty, then he's guilty. If he's not, then he's not. I fail to see how the person currently in office affects how we can enforce laws. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this isn't a sanction that Trump put in place against Iran, it was put there by Obama.

You know what, I was trying to help us come to an agree faster. If you want to pretend like I'm just trying to defend myself and I'm not actually reading anything you're saying, then go ahead. You're so busy defending yourself that you're not actually reading what I said. You questioned my reading comprehension. Is that really that drastically far from me saying you questioned my ability to read, that you have to bring it up and correct me and pretend that because of that I haven't actually been reading what you've said?

So. To clarify, it's moving the goal posts to say "Alright, fine. Think of it this way instead. It's still the same thing. I don't see why we disagree."? Let's look at it numerically. 0 = Perfectly Okay, 1 = Politically Incorrect, 2 = Racist. Me: According to UC, saying "There is only one race, the Human Race", is 2. The main idea, is that I don't think that statement is a 2, I think it should be a 0." You: UC didn't say it was a 2. Me: Alright, then we disagree on what we think they were saying. Regardless, even if they're not saying it's a 2 according to you, they're definitely at least saying it's a 1. I still think it should be a 0. We agree. You: You're moving the goal posts. That is literally all I did. I conceded the idea that regardless of what we both interpreted what they said as, both of us agreed it should be a 0. We just disagreed about whether it was being called a 1 or a 2. And since it didn't matter, I simply conceded that point to try to help us reach an agreement easier. My bad. Next time I'll continually assert that I think it's racist, even though it doesn't support my position at all and doesn't relate.

It wasn't a concession. I still think that UC labeled it racist. But since you were intent on disagreeing with that idea, I went with the more basic idea, simply to try to get the main point across, that at the very least you can concede that they were saying it's politically incorrect which is why it's complained about. It was not moving the goal posts, and I very clearly said: Perhaps that clears up some of your confusion. Filtering out your snark, you'll see I very clearly addressed this already, by pointing out my disagreement was that it isn't "almost always". You'd realize this, but again, you're intent to dig in your heels and drag every inch of ground. Literally if you read my first post, you'll see that I explicitly disagree with your use of always. You can suddenly pretend that I'm an idiot and I've never realized that you used the word almost, but seriously, this is getting tiring. Every singe time I've quoted you, I've included the word "almost" or something similar to that, because I don't put words in your mouth that you didn't say. You're jumping around from one argument to another, and constantly trying to brush everything I've said under the rug without actually addressing what I've said by questioning my ability to read, pretending like I haven't actually read what you said, or trying to say I'm moving the goal posts when I clarify something in a simpler way. But despite all of that, you still haven't addressed what I've said. Anyways, I'm done with this conversation. After all of that, you're so intent on digging your heels in, that now you're trying to pretend that I don't know what the word "almost" is, or pretending that I didn't notice you said it. I explicitly addressed it. And you're still going to play this game. I explicitly addressed the very aspect of what you said, quoted it, and explained why I disagreed with it, I provided citations, quotes, evidence, and my reasoning. And your reply to that is to throw in just one more smart remark. This is what annoys me about having discussions on this forum sometimes.

So, if you guys don't know, starlite is a super heat resistant material that was under serious review by Nasa for use as one of the worlds most effective heat shields. However, the guy who knew the recipe died and we never figured out what it was. It had ridiculous properties that we haven't even come close to being able to replicate. Except, this guy on this youtube channel put out a video show casing what he believes to be starlite, and even explains how to make it so you can test it out for yourself. Thoughts? Is this real?

I wouldn't really say force. If the U.S. really wanted to force something, it could just launch some nukes. What the U.S. is doing in relation to trying to get the UK and the EU to join it against Iran is more like diplomacy. And yes, diplomacy matter of factually does include threatening sanctions. If the UK and the EU don't like it, then they can take the sanctions. If they don't like the US wielding so much power over them, then they can start cutting ties. Etc, etc, etc. Additionally, this isn't something the US does and nobody elses does. Most countries in the EU have done similar things to countries ranging from areas in Asia, to the Middle East, and to Africa. He was allegedly selling US technology to a dictatorship. If he was selling British technology, then fine. That's Britian's choice. But if he is selling US technology, then I feel like we have a right to say that he shouldn't be allowed to do that. Because he is allegedly selling US technology to Iran, which is against the sanctions which we put against Iran. Who thinks your inventory is their inventory?

Once again, stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say they were calling me racist. There was a single person from texas who called me racist, and then I said that more specifically, the University of California has labeled the statement as racist. That's my viewpoint on it. Regardless of whether you think about whether or not they technically said it was racist or not, the main idea which you're completely intent on ignoring is that they said it's politically incorrect, and I think it's ridiculous. I suspect we both agree on that simple concept that saying "There is only one race, the human race" shouldn't be politically incorrect. But you seem more intent on digging your heels in then simply saying something like "Okay, yeah. I can see where me saying that almost everyone who complains about politically correct things is just a privileged person is ignoring a lot of situations." I feel differently. When the intentions are directly in reference to the subject, such as sexism, then yes, it's all relative. If the intentions had nothing to do with that, and were simply grammatical, I don't think that makes something sexist. For example, if he made a statement on the stupidity of women, it could be interpreted as sexist, yes. It was directly related to sexism and genders. When he says "stupid woman" and uses it in a grammatical way, then it doesn't lay on some sort of spectrum, it just exists.

Then what are you arguing about?

First you said it was a mistake the that the EU formed without a big stick. Now it's a mistake that they have one?

Either my country does it then, or it'll do it later. Expansionist countries continue to push the limit, build up, and, surprisingly, expand. Russia will keep doing so, and eventually, if they keep annexing countries and we don't draw the line somewhere and then refuse to back down, it'll get to the point where they're threatening major powers.

Most of the EU countries are also in NATO. The EU isn't some sitting duck without any support.

Pretty sure that big stick is Nato. This is Nato: This is the EU: You'll notice there is a significant overlap.

FFS stop moving the goal posts. The entire point is that you pointed to almost everyone who complained about things being politically correct, and said they were just privileged and were saying it was bullshit because they couldn't say privileged things anymore. You can jump from one side to the other about what they technically mean and all the terms that come with it, but ultimately the statement is quite clear: Don't say it, it's politically incorrect. So yes, I disagree. You're so busy making comments about my reading comprehension that you're not actually reading what I'm saying. TLDR; The quote I shared very simply said don't say it because it's politically incorrect. Do you disagree?

Ignoring your snark, I very clearly said: "the University of California is the one who labeled it racist." Not a person being racist, the statement being racist. Don't put words in my mouth that I never said.

https://academicaffairs.ucsc.edu/events/documents/Microaggressions_Examples_Arial_2014_11_12.pdf There's a whole list. By saying "There is only one race, the human race." you are: "Saying assimilate to the dominant culture. Denying the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and history. Denying the individual as a racial/cultural being."

But then let's say I leaked that to the news. Then, I took your words and I portrayed it in the worst possible context, and then organized protests to label you as an ignorant bigot. At some point, wouldn't you say that what I'm doing is wrong?

You're right that you can't do anything about it. But that doesn't mean that because of my assumptions, others should judge you the same way should they? A girl from Texas. On a more official note, the University of California is the one who labeled it racist. I do not see people jumping up and down claiming that. The word genius carries assumptions about gender, according to the Cambridge University. Again, this is the type of political correctness that is ridiculed. Additionally, the snark in my post was directly in response to yours. Very simply, you classified that almost everyone who complained about political correctness was a sore loser who needed to suck it up. Which is quite arrogant to say.

Building off of this, would it be okay for us to label you as an ignorant bigot because of it? Oh geeze, the ignorance in this post. It's palpable. But sure. Let's go with it. I used to be able to say there is only one race, the human race, without someone calling me a racist. Now I cannot. Now when I say it, I lose social status. Whaaah. I'm tired of all this PC BS! That's typically the type of political correctness crap that get's called out. I don't see scores of people suddenly jumping up "I should be able to call black people ni**ers. I'm tired of this political correct BS." I see scores of people jumping up and saying things like that. Or engineers being told they can't say "cat's eye"(those reflective things in the road that flash at night) because it supports animal cruelty. (Perhaps we should ban crowbar as well?) Or maybe the NUSWC banning clapping at it's events because it might scare someone. Or the word "genius" which "carries assumptions about gender." Or the word "mother" because it can offend people. Or yoga being banned by the SFUO because it's cultural appropriation of Indians. Or the phrase "Zero tolerance" because it implies that some things aren't tolerated when they're not that bad. Which is ironic, considering the people won't tolerate you saying "Zero Tolerance." Do you clap at performances? How bigoted of you to ignore those with autism! Do you believe race doesn't matter? Why are you forcing your culture on me? You think race matters? Racist! You used the word genius? Well someone is showing off their male privilege. You used the word mother? What century do you live in? Medieval Europe?