File: 1478756271259.jpg (62.71 KB, 540x405, tumblr_o3p6i3Pxeu1qasjkvo1_540…)
No. 117126
File: 1478757162884.jpg (27.69 KB, 400x400, tumblr_od1lpbpleo1rik431o1_400…)
>>117125yeah…. blocked his phone number and his online accounts lmao so idk what he's thinking but this was only 2.5 hours ago. didn't know what else to do!!!
No. 117134
>>117126did you meet on tinder?
I feel like all my tinder dates thus far have been awful, they're always super nerdy, or bordeline uncomfortable. I'm suprised I haven't left.
No. 117138
File: 1478764375503.jpeg (56.73 KB, 543x960, image.jpeg)
>>117123>dating someone who goes out with nignogsYeah I would have left too, that's just gross
(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE) No. 117190
>>117123If he had good reason to think so, like you know, her actually saying racist things about white people, then I don't know why you were so
triggered by him saying that.
If he was just acting like every other person on the planet does, and called something racist when it wasn't, hell I woulda booked it out of his house ASAP as well.
No. 117301
>>117123>>117124Sounds like he dodged a bullet tbh
>dating someone who dates blacksI would have left right there, not even waited for him to go to the bathroom (that was a cowardly move on your part; you should have stated what he did wrong, you'll understand when you reach adulthood)
No. 117347
File: 1478916998711.png (426.71 KB, 640x480, DorseyDeray-640x480.png)
Post screengrab of his Tinder profile. Or explain why you went out with him in the first place.
While I think you were really immature and hurtful for ghosting someone and leaving them with the check, he was clearly a throwback because you simply do not start talking about racial matters on a first date. ever.
No. 117348
File: 1478917243533.jpg (351.8 KB, 1600x778, dad_i_dont_want_to_be_in_your_…)
>>117347(contd)
or guns. lol. how stupid do you have to be to bring up guns to a female who barely knows you. a) they are not interested b) you are clearly trying to project yourself as macho but c) you just look fucking scary as shit because it's not a dick measuring competition. it's a date. you know. love and all that.
No. 117387
>>117333>>117332>>117268>>117216Is that the only comeback you have? You know that there's a huge majority of people who aren't "robot" or "overly PC Tumblr browser" and think both are stupid, right?
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a robot, and you're trying way too hard.
No. 117459
>>117332>robotLast time I checked I had two X chromosomes and I've been on this site since its inception, but moving on…..
My mother always raised me to stand up for myself, and explain what someone was doing wrong if they offend me. This is a lesson I took to heart and always try to emulate. It's how you demonstrate assertiveness and hopefully correct the other person so they don't treat others the same way in the future.
Apparently your shitty parents didn't raise you with such values. Sucks to suck anon.
>inb4 fattychan calls me a robot again No. 117484
File: 1479027777508.jpg (134.14 KB, 1120x630, Caution.jpg)
Holy shit this thread is cringy as fuck. Look at them buzzwords lmao.
Why the fuck did you go to another bar with him after he said he'd beat the shit out of someone??
>>117459 is right, how the fuck do you expect the dude to understand and maybe correct his behavior if you just ran away? How is that not a cowardly move? You think he'll act any differently on his next date with another chick? Let us just complain about how much of a dick he is instead of actually doing something to correct him, amirite?
No. 117553
>>117549It's just common courtesy though? As in, it doesn't only apply to men?
If someone is doing something inappropriate, tell them so they can correct themselves because they may not have known otherwise.
I hope one day they'll find a cure for your man-hating autism.
No. 117560
File: 1479147539113.png (370.57 KB, 499x534, 1454410724205.png)
>>117553Give people the common courtesy of choosing whatever fuck they want to choose, including that, the right of not teaching others how to behave in society.
No. 117561
>>117560Then you've no right to complain when someone's being a wanker if you're not telling them to stop. People can't read minds, especially not autistics. If you want to be a coward that's your prerogative, but then don't get buttblasted and blame men when someone doesn't act how you want.
The world doesn't owe it to you to be nice and care about your feelings, if you don't like that, take steps to change it.
No. 117568
>>117561So it's basically my fault people are retard because I am not teaching them the right way?
You seem sheltered as fuck. Try going outside, it might help.
No. 117572
>>117571I wasn't the one 'screeching' and I don't care about your post, hence why I didn't reply to you.
>>117568>So it's basically my fault people are retard because I am not teaching them the right way?No, it 'basically' isn't. People are going to be retarded with or without your interference, but it
is your fault for enduring it and complaining about something done to you personally that you can easily change by telling them to stop.
You seem to be the one who's sheltered here since you can't seem to grasp that one simple thing.
If your romantic interest is saying embarrassing things, you can stay and listen to him and then rant about it on the internet when you get home, or you can tell him he's being a retard and end the date like an adult. They may not change on a personal level, but they won't do it around you anymore.
No. 117608
>>117583Their point isn't that it's your responsibility, it's that you're complaining about shit you did nothing to fix.
Also, if you ran off without even telling him instead of just making up an excuse for why you had to go (or just staying, a date lasts what, a couple hours?) says that you're kind of a shit person too, because that's a real dick move.
That combined with the Tumblr shit in the first post says you were probably more of an issue on the date than you're admitting.
Also
>you're the one replying on my board, capo>i made a board talking about my experience!!!How fucking new are you? You didn't make a board.
No. 117728
>>117124Unironic sjw shit has been becoming more and more common on lolcow.
Of course white people feel marginalized when their own leaders are trying to make them minorities everywhere from Paris to America.
No. 117741
File: 1479292562401.png (185.99 KB, 307x315, 1470295160520.png)
>being this dumb and uninformed and not knowing what is mansplaining
No. 117744
>>117608Yeah, because everyone should insist in a relationship that clearly doesn't work and try to "correct" the way other people think instead of just walking away and making it easier for both. Everyone should live according to your standards because they are probably the best, right?
Of course it's not easier for both. You and the person she dated are probably incel tier neckbeard. I am surprised she even dated him. Probably hid his powerlevel or doesn't look like a fucking awkward mess from outside.
And as usual from scum like you, you are gonna call anyone who disagrees with your alt-right mentality a "Tumblr".
No. 117746
>>117744It's not about insisting or "Correcting", it's about common fucking courtesy. If you can't stand them so much you have to leave immediately, at least let them know why, or just do what every decent human being does on a shitty date and just hang around until the end of it then don't go on another with them.
>You and the person she dated are probably incel tier neckbeardOh yeah, you sure caught me, how will I ever recover!
>And as usual from scum like you, you are gonna call anyone who disagrees with your alt-right mentality a "Tumblr".I called it Tumblr because of the retarded Tumblr buzzwords thrown in there, no other reason. Hence "Tumblr shit", not "You are from Tumblr".
And what did I say that made you think I was alt right at all? Do you have any other comebacks than "I bet you're /pol/ or /r9k/ browser"? Because it doesn't insult anyone. Doesn't bother me because I don't browse them, and doesn't bother them because they don't see it as a bad thing. You should really step it up.
No. 117761
>>117749Wow anon, you sure showed me with your worldliness, that totally excuses you being a dick who lacks the courtesy to even stay to the end of a date, despite it taking like an hour at most.
It's called common courtesy for a reason. If you don't have it, you're a cunt. Other cunts existing in the world doesn't make it more excusable.
And seriously, going "grow up" as an argument when you're the one who ran out of a date because they were "mansplaining" you? Might want to look in a mirror there bucko.
Even more so if you're just someone whiteknighting for them.
No. 117787
>>117785Not that anon, but maybe because OP's a retard and overreacted to absolutely nothing. She got
triggered and left.
No. 117859
>>117746why? if i can't stand someone, i leave. i gave plenty of chances and i'm tired of trying to teach dudes how to behave so i just don't have the patience.
also, other anon called your autistic screeching alt right bc that's what it is, lmao. getting mad at the word "mansplain" and throwing around "tumblr" in response to when a woman doesn't want to be around someone without expwaining so she doesnt huwt his incel feewings speaks volumes about you
No. 117864
>>117861No-one's upset because you called them incels you moron, we know we're not, you going "haha I bet you are" means nothing to anyone, just makes you look like a retarded teenager.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is some boogieman from another site, we just think you're an immature self righteous tard. Sure, he sounds like a dick too, but I really, really doubt you're without fault in this situation based on how you've handled yourself here.
Just shoving as many different buzzwords as you can in a single post doesn't make you look smarter, it makes you look like you're fresh off the boat from Tumblr, seeing as you're clearly extremely new here.
No. 117877
>>117861Yup, I'm an incel. You got me, sleuth! It's so easy to tell how angry you are that people aren't supporting you in this thread if that's all you can come up with. You're an idiot and sound immature as fuck only thinking of things in black and white. Seriously, was it your 8th grade first date? I'm glad you left, because that boy doesn't deserve to put up with a whiny cunt like you.
>what's the big deal?Lol that's just it. Nothing. You're turning some harmless thing he said into something oh so tragic! I hope you get help soon, truly. Go take a chill pill and relax.
No. 117902
>>117746>If you can't stand them so much you have to leave immediately, at least let them know why, or just do what every decent human being does on a shitty date and just hang around until the end of it then don't go on another with them. So either
A) Be confrontational because your personal opinion clashes with the personal opinions someone else who you have no attachment to, have already decided you don't care for and will never date
or
B) Continue suffering because it's "polite"
Are you just scared that one day you'll reveal your /pol9k/ powerlevel and get ghosted on a date? Kek.
No. 117906
>>117902>these are the only two possible optionsOR, act like an adult and tell them you don't like thing x about them, tell them you just aren't compatible and end the date.
jesus christ are you 11
No. 117925
>>117902>Continue suffering because it's "polite"So, you're saying you shouldn't have to do anything simply because it's "polite", but he's a retarded dick for not being polite?
Don't be a hypocrite.
You either just finish the date and don't go out with them again, like fucking everyone who has a bad date does (it's not like he did something so insanely offensive that you'd be disgusted and have to leave), or let him know why you don't see it going any further and cut it short.
Running off is just immature, and a dick move, with no real justification for it except for that you're clearly too immature to be able to hang out with someone you don't like for an hour out of courtesy, and to see if it gets better.
Seriously, why did you come here, not even hang out long enough to find out the difference between a board and a thread and then start accusing people from being from other sites? Did you honestly think that seemed like a good way to handle it?
Grow up.
No. 117980
>>117960As opposed to the defense of "I bet you're a virgin"?
>>117964You've very clearly come here from some other site and immediately started accusing others of the same as soon as they disagree with you.
Lurk before you post.
No. 118007
>>118001Wow, you've been using chans for years and don't know the difference between a board and a thread? It's not like it was a typo either, you typed it several times.
I really doubt you learned to use the word mansplaining seriously from fucking 4chan of all places too.
And no, that was another anon who called you a coward, and I really don't think you know what the whole pot/kettle thing means.
>>117988What are any of us trying to achieve? I have free time, OP's a retard, so I spent the time to call them that and explain why.
No. 118014
>>118007mansplain isn't from 4chan and who cares if theres a difference between a board and a thread, seriously pathetic if you're arguing about that lmao. there's a good ny times article to check out about mansplaining
How to Explain Mansplaining - The New York Times
i've also read a book about it called "men explain things to me" by rebecca solnit. it's not a tumblr buzzword, it's an actual thing. educate urself pls you thread-purist
No. 118017
>>118014You're accusing people from being from other places while obviously being from elsewhere yourself. That's why it matters.
And just because there's a book about something doesn't make it serious. I'm sure there's a book about how aliens did 9/11 too, and plenty of huge internet blogs about it, it doesn't mean it should be taken seriously.
It's a tumblr buzzword, because it unnecessarily injects gender politics into what's actually just that some people are condescending dicks.
No. 118029
>>118028By your logic, if I was a guy I could say you were femsplaining me or some shit.
It's ridiculous, people can be condescending assholes regardless of gender, you don't need a completely different term based on what's between their legs.
And you really have to tone down the "if you don't agree with me you're clearly X/Y/Z stereotype group that discredits you completely" shit. It's not like we're been using /r9k/ terms or something.
No. 118072
>>118062So, should white people that were oppressed have their own terms? Maybe the Jews should too? Goysplaining?
I mean, the Romans enslaved a lot of people, should we have a Wogsplaining as well?
It's ridiculous and completely unnecessary, just use the words that already exist, don't make up special snowflake terms for no reason. Because seriously, can you blame anyone for thinking it's retarded?
>it's not a stereotype but you're stereotyping every woman on this boardWhat? By calling you a retard who's very clearly new to chan boards and telling you that using stupid Tumblr words and acting incredibly immaturely on your date, I'm stereotyping all women on this board, including myself?
And no-one's upset that you're pretending everyone who thinks you're dumb (so, most of this thread) is some incel or /pol/ moron, it's just stupid when all you're going off is "You don't like Tumblrisms".
No. 118101
File: 1479488161922.png (132.61 KB, 339x296, 230114_908223010.png)
>>118095
>a site full of women>expecting it to be 100% feminism freeHave you ventured beyond /b/?
No. 118116
File: 1479503585578.jpg (50.14 KB, 750x679, FEMINISM IS FOR EVERYONE GUYS …)
>>118062I bet you're the kind of person who'd approve pic related for "fighting the oppression"
No. 118127
>>118123>>118118worst part was that the only reason they stopped selling them was because of the "Fat Her"
not because of people complaints of sexism and shit
No. 118134
>>118103It's not even a feminist concept, idiot. The same applies all across the board for systematically oppressed groups. It's a SOCIOLOGICAL concept. It's basic class analysis. You people are honestly so fucking stupid. BIAS exists, but it isn't sexism. Just like BIAS against whites exists among individual blacks in the US, but it's not racism. It really has nothing to do with feminism. To be racist, sexist, etc, you need to have methodical power. Again, I'm not into social sciences. This is basic vocab that you learn at Uni having to take req humanities courses. You guys are retarded.
>>118102It's probably a man. Plenty of self-hating women in chan culture are compulsive dickkissers, but I'm pretty sure that's a man.
No. 118141
>>118134The literal definition of racism or sexism disagrees with you.
You can't just redefine words to suit your purposes and act like people are uneducated when they say this is retarded.
We get the rhetoric, it's just stupid. You could use the same logic to claim that a poor disabled person in the KKK actually isn't racist, he's just biased against black people because he doesn't have any social power.
Hell, you could use that same logic to say that only the top 1% can be racist or sexist, because compared to them, we have no power.
It's fucking retarded, and acting condescending doesn't make it less so.
And thinking that this is stupid doesn't make you a guy, or mean you hate yourself, and it's telling that you automatically discredit anyone who disagrees with you like that.
No. 118152
>>117980I never called anyone a virgin, though. You still think I'm OP. If you want to leave a date, leave. You're not obliged to stay and explain to them why you find them insufferable. Is it the nice, polite thing to do? Yes. Do you HAVE to do it, especially if you don't care if the other person thinks you're a dick for it? Fuck no.
No one is obliged to be nice to you.
No. 118153
>>118152>I never called anyone a virgin, though. >>117216>>117268>>117333>>117377>>117861There's been several posts from OP and people agreeing with her calling people virgins or incels or /r9k/. No shit I can't tell exactly which poster you are.
>No one is obliged to be nice to you.Okay? No-one said you did, but it's pretty ironic to go "No-one has to be nice to you" while whiteknighting for the OP after people called her retarded.
Don't use "Well I don't have to be nice" as a defence and then get all upset when people call you out on being an immature retard, and probably don't start using condescending Tumblr terms and then get even more defensive when people call that retarded too and call you out on obvious newfaggotry.
You get the point people are saying here, and how terrible an excuse "Well I don't have to be nice" is when people call you out on being a dick?
>>118151You completely missed the point of their post. It was highlighting how the argument that the existence of racism or sexism is based off of social status falls apart when you start comparing identical things. Only the last few points were meant to be things had actually said.
No. 118154
>>118153Why are you projecting your own butthurt on me? I really don't care if someone on an anonymous forum calls me a retard, and I'm not whiteknighting anyone, I'm just pointing out the obvious. OP didn't have to stay for the date.
>Don't use "Well I don't have to be nice" as a defence and then get all upset when people call you out on being an immature retard, and probably don't start using condescending Tumblr terms and then get even more defensive when people call that retarded too and call you out on obvious newfaggotry.You're still chiding me for what OP has done/said even after I've clarified I'm not OP. Are you brain dead?
"Well I don't have to be a nice" is not an excuse. It's just the truth. Cry some more.
No. 118156
>>118154Yeah, you caught me, I'm in tears here, this is really getting to me. It's far more than just boredom and that little (1) in the top of the tab being the most interesting thing going on at midnight.
OP didn't have to be nice, sure, but it's common courtesy to do so, and it makes her a shitty person to act that way and then act like it's everyone else at fault.
You should really work on your reading comprehension if you though I was claiming you were OP in my last post too. I was pointing out how your defense was a fucking terrible one against the stuff people had accused them of being.
Also, anonymous forum, I have no idea which posts in this thread were you, so am just going off the general tone of posts agreeing with you that aren't clearly OP.
Please learn what projection is before you just throw the term around too, nothing I did even hints at projection.
No. 118157
>>118153I forgot to add this (because you're kind of an idiot, let me clarify that I'm
>>118154 off the bat):
>No shit I can't tell exactly which poster you are.I'd think someone who spergs out (albeit at the wrong person) about the difference between an entire board and a thread would realize that the specific post/poster they're responding to is who they are (especially when I already pointed out in
>>117960 that I didn't do whatever bullshit you're spewing because I'm not OP).
Multiple people think you're a fucking idiot dude.
No. 118158
>>118157>I'd think someone who spergs out (albeit at the wrong person) about the difference between an entire board and a thread Who was sperging out? I simply pointed out that OP was a moron for trying to imply that others were just invaders from some other side when she clearly was extremely new herself.
And there's a big difference between knowing basic terminology and being able to pinpoint exactly who in the thread you are.
>Multiple people think you're a fucking idiot dude.Oh shit, you and OP? You realise there's at least a dozen posts that agree with me, right? And that it doesn't fucking matter either way, because more people thinking something doesn't make it more right?
No. 118159
>>118156 >this is really getting to me.Considering the essays you've been writing with such vitriol and rage, that much is clear.
>but it's common courtesy to do so,>"muh common courtesy" againNo one cares. He was a sperg, she didn't like him. He probably posted a greentext about it on 4chan and the other posters licked his wounds by saying she was a dumb whore anyway. He will feel superior and vindicated for the fact, and his beliefs will strengthen. Meanwhile, OP got out of a shitty date and got to live her life. Everyone wins.
>it makes her a shitty personNot being polite and trying to preserve other people's feelings 24/7 doesn't necessarily make you a shitty person, but okay.
>and then act like it's everyone else at fault.Looks like she knows what she did and was pretty unapologetic about the whole thing. She doesn't care.
>You should really work on your reading comprehension if you though I was claiming you were OP in my last post too.I'm pretty sure "Don't do [this thing]" implies you think the person did it. You just want me to be OP really badly for whatever reason. I never used "condescending Tumblr terms" or "get defensive", so why would you tell me that instead of saying "OP shouldn't have done [this thing]"? And you've already demonstrated you're mentally capable of that by typing "OP didn't have to be nice" and not "You didn't have to be nice". You just fucked up and accused the wrong people because you're dumb. No point trying to escape it.
> I was pointing out how your defense was a fucking terrible one against the stuff people had accused them of being.But it's not. You have yet to point out a single thing wrong with what I said: You don't need to be polite. It's nice, but it's not the law.
>nothing I did even hints at projection.top fucking kek, keep telling yourself that
No. 118160
>>118158>Who was sperging out?You, clearly. If you just said "It's a thread, not a board, you dumbfuck" and left it at that, you would've seemed less
triggered.
>Oh shit, you and OP? Me, OP, and all the other posts/people you foolishly assumed were either me or OP, and then felt the need to search out and link to as if they prove anything. That person doesn't even type similarly to me, they use all lower case.
>You realise there's at least a dozen posts that agree with me, right? And more that disagree, to the point where you don't even know who is who (even when there are obvious markers).
>And that it doesn't fucking matter either way, because more people thinking something doesn't make it more right?I didn't say it made anyone more "right", I'm saying that thinking we're all the same person makes you retarded.
No. 118161
>>118153It doesn't start falling apart. For racism and sexism, it applies and generally is widely agreed upon by sociologists. That was a total fucking strawman. You think any discussion of race or sex must come from tumblr tier SJW fucktards. Well, it doesn't. Again, it's introductory sociology and if were ever forced to take a fucking humanities class, you would know that.
"For “reverse racism,” or racism against whites, to exist in the U.S., we would first have to reach racial equality in systemic and structural ways. We would have to pay reparations to make up for centuries upon centuries of unjust impoverishment. We would have to equalize wealth distribution, and achieve equal political representation. We would have to see equal representation across all job sectors and educational institutions. We would have to abolish racist policing, judicial, and incarceration systems. And, we would have to eradicate ideological, interactional, and representational racism."
http://sociology.about.com/od/Ask-a-Sociologist/fl/Can-Sociology-Help-Me-Counter-Claims-of-Reverse-Racism.htmYou don't know anything about sociology, please fuck off. It isn't a feminist concept, as I said. Racism and bias are not the same thing. Bias and sexism are not the same thing. Just because you don't know what you're talking and are using terms (incorrectly) while pretending to be knowledgeable because you're a "skeptical anti-SJW ehehe" doesn't make you right. I could give two fucks about women's studies or causes commonly taken up on tumblr, I'm just pointing out that you're completely incorrect in using racism or sexism when you mean bias.
No. 118162
>Considering the essays you've been writing with such vitriol and rage, that much is clear.Kek, you talk about projection and then say shit like this? OP's a bit annoying, but I can guarantee that there's nothing rage induced or vitriolic about my posts, and 8 lines is hardly an essay.
>He probably posted a greentext about it on 4chanAs opposed to her, who made a thread on lolcow. Really not a great strawman to create.
>Not being polite and trying to preserve other people's feelings 24/7 doesn't necessarily make you a shitty person, but okay.Once again, never said this, but ghosting someone mid date combined with her attitude kind of does.
>You just want me to be OP really badly for whatever reason.You're the only one who's talking about you being OP at this point, I got posters mixed up, didn't push the issue after you pointed out I did, and you've just clung to it.
>But it's not. You have yet to point out a single thing wrong with what I said: You don't need to be polite. It's nice, but it's not the law.Okay? I've never claimed it is. It's not illegal to be a shit person, but that doesn't all of the sudden make you being one excusable.
>top fucking kek, keep telling yourself thatSeriously, what did I project?
>>118160>If you just said "It's a thread, not a board, you dumbfuck" and left it at that, you would've seemed less triggered.That would have just left the point I was raising completely unmade and have been pointless.
>Me, OP, and all the other posts/people you foolishly assumed were either me or OP,Please, all the posts I quoted bar maybe one or two were very clearly OP, and I admitted that I was going by the general tone of the posts agreeing with OP or you.
>That person doesn't even type similarly to me, they use all lower case.hi its another person here and i just wanted to let you know that ur dumb lmao
>I didn't say it made anyone more "right", I'm saying that thinking we're all the same person makes you retarded.Not once have I said that?
Seriously, you accuse me of being mad and then comeback with these very clearly upset posts filled with fallacies. Go take a walk or some shit dude.
No. 118164
>>118162>Kek, you talk about projection and then say shit like this? Do you know what projection means?
>OP's a bit annoying, but I can guarantee that there's nothing rage induced or vitriolic about my posts, and 8 lines is hardly an essay.So annoying you stayed in the thread for 2 days and then went so insane you couldn't tell obviously different people apart, even after they pointed out who they were very clearly.
>As opposed to her, who made a thread on lolcow. Really not a great strawman to create.Not a strawman. Do you even know what that word means at all? Also, I wasn't even implying there was something wrong with him posting about it.
>Once again, never said this, but ghosting someone mid date combined with her attitude kind of does.What was wrong with her attitude? That she used the word "mansplaining" and it set off tumblr flashbacks for you?
>You're the only one who's talking about you being OP at this point,You tried to defend yourself by saying "Oh well there are so many people who agree with her, of course I can't tell them apart!" and now that that's fallen apart, you're pretending you didn't try kek.
>I got posters mixed up, didn't push the issue after you pointed out I did, and you've just clung to it.Yes, you did push the issue by further accusing me of shit I already clarified I didn't do. I've already explained why telling someone "don't do something" implies you think they're guilty of that thing, so either you didn't read, or I dunno.
>Seriously, what did I project?You're being way more defensive than anyone I've seen thus far ITT, but you accused me of being "upset" and "defensive".
>That would have just left the point I was raising completely unmade and have been pointless.Your "point" was just you sperging out over semantics, as I said. It wasn't valuable to the discussion whatsoever.
>Please, all the posts I quoted bar maybe one or two were very clearly OP, and I admitted that I was going by the general tone of the posts agreeing with OP or you.What "general tone"? We have separate syntaxes. We just both think you're dumb.
>hi its another person here and i just wanted to let you know that ur dumb lmaoWhy would OP or myself switch typing styles for no reason? Unless you're going to go down the very messy "Everyone who disagrees with me is the same person samefagging!" path, you're getting really sad.
>Not once have I said that?You just admitted to getting posters mixed up. Alzheimer's, much?
>Seriously, you accuse me of being mad and then comeback with these very clearly upset posts filled with fallacies. Go take a walk or some shit dude.How are they upset? All I've done to this point is say "You don't have to be nice, and I'm also not OP" and you just continued going full autismo.
>Go take a walk or some shit dude.You should take your own advice. Also, you used "dude" right after I did. This means we have the same "general tone" and are undoubtedly the same person arguing with themselves. Spooky.
No. 118165
>>118161>Racism and bias are not the same thing. Bias and sexism are not the same thing. If you have a belief that leads you to discriminate against another group, you are being discriminatory, correct?
Racism and sexism are just specific forms of discrimination.
Some blog piece by a "sociology expert" doesn't change this, nor do some fringe intellectual movements that are heavily, heavily disputed by many groups, and are attempting to change the definitions of words for no real reason.
For your definition to be correct, you'd have to argue that if I went to say, Uganda, a country where white people are absolutely the minority and don't have very much power at all and started killing every black person I found for the reason "I fucking hate niggers and think the world would be a better place without those subhuman animals on its surface", that it wouldn't be racist, because I lack any methodical power there.
Or that say, if the Black Panthers came back and started killing everyone who wasn't black, developing power and becoming a major influence, that they would only actually become a racist group after they had enough power to be more powerful than the government, even if they were doing the exact same things before and after.
It completely falls apart when taken out of the very specific examples that are used to support the theory, hence why it's not really taken very seriously, and why people mock you for acting condescending while saying it's an objectively correct way to think about it.
No. 118169
>>118164>Do you know what projection means?Yep, it means that you're attempting to claim that I have a trait to redirect attention away from you possessing that trait.
You've claimed my posts are full of rage and vitriol, then replied with a very emotional post yourself. Even if it's not projection, it's incredibly hypocritical.
>then went so insane you couldn't tell obviously different people apart, even after they pointed out who they were very clearly. I mixed up one post, and you've focused on it non-stop since. I really don't get what point you're trying to prove here.
>Do you even know what that word means at allYou're creating a false image of what went on in order to make it easier to attack.
And the point was clearly intended as an insult, you're not fooling anyone by going "OH I didn't mean anything bad by it :^)"
>What was wrong with her attitude?Refusing to admit any responsibility or wrongdoing, constantly resorting to childish insults when people point out that she was shitty and very clearly hasn't spent enough time here to integrate properly, incredibly immature reactions in other ways to people calling her out. Lots of stuff.
>You tried to defend yourself by saying "Oh well there are so many people who agree with her, of course I can't tell them apart!"Where did I say this? I said I can't tell exactly which posts in the thread you are, because I can't. You're the only one talking about you being OP.
>Yes, you did push the issue by further accusing me of shit I already clarified I didn't do. But I didn't?
>I've already explained why telling someone "don't do something" implies you think they're guilty of that thing, so either you didn't read, or I dunno.Sure, poor wording, but my intent was clear, and I clarified it already in case it wasn't. It does also apply to you though, why say "you don't have to be nice" and then hit me with a rant about how I'm wrong for not being nice to OP?
>Your "point" was just you sperging out over semantics, as I said. But it wasn't, it was just pointing out that OP was projecting her newness onto others, and should really stop doing that when she's so new to chans full stop that she doesn't know what a thread is.
>It wasn't valuable to the discussion whatsoever.It was a passing remark at the end of my post.
>What "general tone"? We have separate syntaxes. We just both think you're dumb. First off, that's not what tone means in this context, and secondly, cheers for just admitting that I was actually correct in my assumption that it was just you and OP that I'd quoted.
>Why would OP or myself switch typing styles for no reason? I never claimed you would, just was pointing out that "I'm not them, I have a different posting style!" is a silly argument. You are the only one saying that I was ever accusing anyone of samefagging, all because I mixed up who'd posted a single post.
>How are they upset?It's in your tone, I really don't care that much to post a bunch of quotes for you to deny it though.
>You should take your own advice.Why? I'm not particularly bothered by what's going on here.
>This means we have the same "general tone" and are undoubtedly the same person arguing with themselves. Spooky.Please learn what words actually mean before you try to mock me for using them. General tone of a discussion doesn't mean that the whole discussion was written in the exact same style.
No. 118170
>>118167Yeah, perhaps, I just listed the first African country that came to mind honestly.
Change it to Zimbabwe instead, I know that white people were insanely socially prosecuted over there.
No. 118173
>>118169>Yep, it means that you're attempting to claim that I have a trait to redirect attention away from you possessing that trait.Which is exactly what you're doing.
>You've claimed my posts are full of rage and vitriol, then replied with a very emotional post yourself. Even if it's not projection, it's incredibly hypocritical.How were my posts emotional? If you don't care to explain your point, why even bring it up?
>I mixed up one post, and you've focused on it non-stop since. I really don't get what point you're trying to prove here.You mixed up more than one post, and still insisted on that mix-up after it was clarified twice.
>You're creating a false image of what went on in order to make it easier to attack.So, you don't know what a strawman (ie, an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent) is.
My image isn't false, either. OP didn't like the date, so she ghosted him. From what she said, he was exactly the type of person who would do what was described therein, and even then I stated those things as "probable", not fact.
>And the point was clearly intended as an insult, you're not fooling anyone by going "OH I didn't mean anything bad by it :^)"What makes you believe it was intended as an insult? I mentioned it offhandedly, and said they both "won" in that scenario. It sounds more like you personally are offended. Did I strike a nerve somehow?
>Refusing to admit any responsibility or wrongdoing, constantly resorting to childish insults when people point out that she was shitty and very clearly hasn't spent enough time here to integrate properlyDid she do those things on the date? Sounded like he didn't mind her company until she left.
>But I didn't?But you did, and I've outlined how you did so like twice now.
>Sure, poor wording, but my intent was clear, I clarified it already in case it wasn't. It does also apply to you though, No, it really wasn't and your "clarification" really was just an excuse tbh. It doesn't apply to me, either.
>why say "you don't have to be nice" and then hit me with a rant about how I'm wrong for not being nice to OP?When did I ever do that? I only said "you don't have to be nice", I never said shit about you being "wrong for not being nice to OP". Ironically, this is an actual example of a strawman.
>First off, that's not what tone means in this context,I didn't define "tone" at all in any context within that sentence. Top reading comprehension.
>and secondly, cheers for just admitting that I was actually correct in my assumption that it was just you and OP that I'd quoted.I didn't "admit" anything, I was speaking within the context of your weird belief that only me and OP could possibly disagree with you. And even if I did, how am I to "admit" anything when none of us actually know which posters are which?
>I never claimed you would, just was pointing out that "I'm not them, I have a different posting style!" is a silly argument.It isn't, though. If you disagree that posting style can be a marker for a poster, you're probably new. It's certainly better than the idea that everyone with similar opinions in a thread must be the same person, kek.
>You are the only one saying that I was ever accusing anyone of samefagging, all because I mixed up who'd posted a single post.Is English your second language? I never said that, I said that the only way that part of your post makes sense is if you're going to accuse people of samefagging. You're dragging things out even further, and accusing me of doing that.
>It's in your tone, I really don't care that much to post a bunch of quotes for you to deny it though.So, you have absolutely no way to back up your argument and prove you're not projecting your analpain?
>Why? I'm not particularly bothered by what's going on here.Sure, you're not.
>Please learn what words actually mean before you try to mock me for using them. This coming from the person who doesn't know what a strawman is. Hypocritical as fuck, m8.
>General tone of a discussion doesn't mean that the whole discussion was written in the exact same style.It's certainly more valid than your poor attempt to make me and OP into the same person based on some vague, as of yet undefined idea of "general tone" and the idea that it's impossible/unlikely for people who disagree with you to be separate from each other.
No. 118180
>>118165Specific forms of discrimination that require power to meet the definitions of racism and sexism. Racism and sexism is bias AND power. It's the defining difference between bias/prejudice and racism or bias/prejudice and sexism. It's not just one sociology expert. It's widely agreed upon in the field of sociology. IF society was COMPLETELY restructured, yes, but without total restructuring of society, it can't be racism.
"While individual persons of color may well discriminate against a white person or another person of color because of their race, this does not qualify as racism according to our definition because that person of color cannot depend upon all
the institutions of society to enforce or extend his or her personal dislike. Nor can he or she call upon
the force of history to reflect and enforce that prejudice. . . . History provides us with a long record of white people holding and using power and privilege over people of color to subordinate them, not the
reverse."
(Paula S. Rothenberg. Defining Racism and Sexism)
This definition is often included and quoted in sociology textbooks. Prejudice against whites by a few individual blacks in a society that favors and is structured to benefit whites isn't RACISM. That was my point. You were and are wrong in using "racism" or "sexism" to be mean prejudiced, and having specialty studies like "women's studies" in a society primarily governed by men isn't prejudiced, and it's especially not sexist, as you claimed, especially since people aren't FORCED to take women's studies. Specialties aren't discriminatory, they're just specialty courses, like photography or medicine, etc. You've honestly got to be seriously fucking retarded to think specialty studies are sexist or racist. I don't take social sciences particularly seriously either, but these are basic, agreed upon definitions and you're using these terms incorrectly. Don't pretend like it's widely disputed, or that you'd even know what is and isn't disputed in the field of sociology when you're not even knowledgeable enough to use the correct phrasing or the distinctions between terms in the first place.
No. 118183
File: 1479575994288.jpeg (84.94 KB, 381x254, image.jpeg)
>>118180>Racism and sexism is bias AND power.Go back to your echo chamber, Tumblr.
Also, please define "person of color" and "white."
No. 118219
>>118173I honestly have no idea what you're even trying to argue, so I'm not going to bother replying to you.
>>118180You can't use "If you don't agree with my theories it's because you know nothing!" as an argument.
Academic fields are driven by people disagreeing, and I wouldn't go around acting like an expert because you took an intro to humanities at some shitty uni that taught you about racism and sexism instead of things you'd actually need to be introduced to in order to do a humanities course.
Good job ignoring my examples where the theory falls apart, too, that kind of supports my claim that it's pretty indefensible outside middle class America.
And once again, you can't just redefine words to fit your agenda. Racism and sexism are just specific forms of discrimination, based on race or sex. There's nothing more to it, never has been, and some morons trying to redefine it for no reason won't change this.