When Woodward asks if Trump has any impetus to understand Black Anger. Trump says "No"

[lil devils x]

I haven't encountered any toxicity in Overwatch myself. Maybe a few comments of "dumbass" or whatnot, but they're so rare.

When people say "toxicity in games," stuff like LoL comes to mind first and foremost.

That aside, not sure what to say. Trump's a sociopath and a racist. So that's a double combination of assholery in the above instances.

I haven't found a game that doesn't turn toxic the second I open my mouth in Team chat. There are always creeps lurking in the wings the second a girl speaks, EVERYWHERE.

And, yet, his support/approval from black voters is quite strong for a Republican. What, some 30% from recentish polling?

Higher than 2016 at least.

Uh no.
" Ninety-eight percent of black voters who identify as Democrat, and 72 percent of those who identify as independent said they would back whoever ultimately becomes the Democratic nominee over Trump. Just 12 percent of black voters who identify as Republican said the same. "

He only has like 12% of black REPUBLICANS. Hell, and he could lose those to Kanye. LOL

Poll: Overwhelming majority of black voters back any 2020 Democrat over Trump

An overwhelming majority of black voters — 85 percent — said in a new Hill-HarrisX poll that they would choose any Democratic presidential candidate over President Trump.The survey, which was relea…

thehill.com

 

[Trunkage]

damn what do you play?

I play Elder Scrolls Online. Deliberately becuase it isn’t things like OW, LoL or Siege. We usually just start reporting any trolling stuff and try to be helpful instead of insulting to noobs. There is usually one zone (used to be Glenumbra but currently North Elsweyr) where the rules are more relaxed and zone chat is far more vicious. Most people stay away (or deliberately seek it out if they want). But even then, it doesn’t get bad at all

 

[Houseman]

I haven't found a game that doesn't turn toxic the second I open my mouth in Team chat. There are always creeps lurking in the wings the second a girl speaks, EVERYWHERE.

Gotta disguise your voice to sound like McCree. Try it next time.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

damn what do you play?

You should see the Wargame (AirLand Battle and Red Dragon are the two I've personally seen) communities. A truly awful combination of communist/capitalist bickering, gun/military fetishists wanking off about their favorite hardware, and the occasional Nazi to keep things interesting, with the best part being that the chat window is open on the main menu, so you don't even need to poke your head into an actual match to need a shower.

Anyway, if this is from that same interview as the previous Woodward one, then the timing of this could not have been worse, especially with all that would happen a few months after that interview in February.

And finally;

Never played it, but I am waiting for the sequel to hop on the toxic train. I like triggering people by saying its just a game bro.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Uh no.
" Ninety-eight percent of black voters who identify as Democrat, and 72 percent of those who identify as independent said they would back whoever ultimately becomes the Democratic nominee over Trump. Just 12 percent of black voters who identify as Republican said the same. "

He only has like 12% of black REPUBLICANS. Hell, and he could lose those to Kanye. LOL

Poll: Overwhelming majority of black voters back any 2020 Democrat over Trump

An overwhelming majority of black voters — 85 percent — said in a new Hill-HarrisX poll that they would choose any Democratic presidential candidate over President Trump.The survey, which was relea…

thehill.com

That article is a year old.

Poll: Trump approval rises among black, hispanic voters amid convention

President Trump’s support among black voters rose 9 percentage points amid the Republican National Convention, a new Hill-HarrisX poll finds. Twenty-four percent of registered black vote…

thehill.com

We'll split the difference though.

 

[Dreiko]

This isn't surprising but I don't think you need to twist it to make it more negative than it really is because we all know what he thinks.

What I wanna know is why nobody debates the merits of that stance to defeat it and just calls it racist and calls it a day then and there.


Basically, the idea is that there's no privilege in place, because we simply are enjoying the fruits of our ancestor's labors, that they planted in order to leave their legacy for us to enjoy with that purpose in mind.


Basically, it goes like this: I'm a conqueror in the 1400s, I want to leave a legacy in this world going forward, how do I do this? I go on and conquer lands and establish a country and make sure the people who will come after me will honor me and to do that I set up a system that benefits them such that they remember me fondly. In the 1400s it is perfectly normal to do this by conquering, being imperialistic, enslaving people, so on and so forth, and it is in my right to set up this system as the victor.

IMPORTANT: Implicit in this, is that were some other populace (such as the ottoman empire) the winners, they would ALSO do this too, so there's no one group/country/race that is especially heinous here, there's just the countries who won and the ones who lost.

We do not have the right to undo that person's will and life work because in our modern morality we deem his actions immoral. And it is not unearned privilege to enjoy a higher social status based on that person's efforts, he literally won that privilege with the proper way you won it back in his day and age, the fact that it has long-lasting ramifications merely goes to show just how bad it was that the defeated were defeated, how much of a fuckup it was for them to be unable to resist that guy from the 1400s. If you want to blame anyone for that, blame those ancestors who lost for being unable to protect their future descendants from oppression, not the one who won and gave something to the future generations of his people with the system that was the norm at the time.

So yeah, this is the sort of thinking Trump employs when he speaks of the coolaid, and if you don't earnestly grapple with it you won't convince anyone of your position.

 

[Buyetyen]

What I wanna know is why nobody debates the merits of that stance to defeat it and just calls it racist and calls it a day then and there.

Can't debate merits that aren't there. The idea that some people deserve to be treated as second-class citizens because of the amount of melanin in their skin is so fundamentally irrational that to dignify it with debate would be no different than inviting Gwyneth Paltrow to a symposium on preventive medicine. And anyone who is irrational enough to believe that treating people in such a way is an acceptable status quo cannot be trusted to argue in good faith in defense of this stance, nor can they be trusted to be rational in other aspects of their lives. This broken calibration in their brain will have a geometric effect on their world view.

IMPORTANT: Implicit in this, is that were some other populace (such as the ottoman empire) the winners, they would ALSO do this too, so there's no one group/country/race that is especially heinous here, there's just the countries who won and the ones who lost.

Which is a phenomenally self-serving argument for racists to make because it absolves them of having to actually confront the damage that bigotry has caused domestically. It's nothing more than the classic, "That country is way worse to live in!" dodge.

We do not have the right to undo that person's will and life work because in our modern morality we deem his actions immoral.

If the person's life's work involves hurting other people, which conquest most certainly does, then yes we do.

 

[Houseman]

The idea that some people deserve to be treated as second-class citizens because of the amount of melanin in their skin

Wow, a strawman right out of the gate.
Nobody ever said or implied such a thing.

 

[Trunkage]

This isn't surprising but I don't think you need to twist it to make it more negative than it really is because we all know what he thinks.

What I wanna know is why nobody debates the merits of that stance to defeat it and just calls it racist and calls it a day then and there.

Yep, legit, nobody tried this ever /s

Basically, the idea is that there's no privilege in place, because we simply are enjoying the fruits of our ancestor's labors, that they planted in order to leave their legacy for us to enjoy with that purpose in mind.


Basically, it goes like this: I'm a conqueror in the 1400s, I want to leave a legacy in this world going forward, how do I do this? I go on and conquer lands and establish a country and make sure the people who will come after me will honor me and to do that I set up a system that benefits them such that they remember me fondly. In the 1400s it is perfectly normal to do this by conquering, being imperialistic, enslaving people, so on and so forth, and it is in my right to set up this system as the victor.

IMPORTANT: Implicit in this, is that were some other populace (such as the ottoman empire) the winners, they would ALSO do this too, so there's no one group/country/race that is especially heinous here, there's just the countries who won and the ones who lost.

I’m going to point out that hardly anyone did this. Hardly anyone conquorered. Or even wanted to conquer. Nobody liked it in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia or the Americas. It’s why we have the west as it is now, a deliberate stop gap to quench Conquerers.

We do not have the right to undo that person's will and life work because in our modern morality we deem his actions immoral. And it is not unearned privilege to enjoy a higher social status based on that person's efforts, he literally won that privilege with the proper way you won it back in his day and age, the fact that it has long-lasting ramifications merely goes to show just how bad it was that the defeated were defeated, how much of a fuckup it was for them to be unable to resist that guy from the 1400s. If you want to blame anyone for that, blame those ancestors who lost for being unable to protect their future descendants from oppression, not the one who won and gave something to the future generations of his people with the system that was the norm at the time.

So yeah, this is the sort of thinking Trump employs when he speaks of the coolaid, and if you don't earnestly grapple with it you won't convince anyone of your position.

A lot of what we are asking for is this stuff NOT to continue. It’s still here and hasn’t completely gone. Lot of laws still advantage those with privilege, How about we stop that?

 

[Houseman]

Lot of laws still advantage those with privilege, How about we stop that?

First of all, what is "privilege"? Can you define it?

 

[SupahEwok]

First of all, what is "privilege"? Can you define it?

Access to yo mama.

 

[Dreiko]

A lot of what we are asking for is this stuff NOT to continue. It’s still here and hasn’t completely gone. Lot of laws still advantage those with privilege, How about we stop that?

Right, I do support that since as we learn more and advance we have new theories about how to organize the world. I just think it's inaccurate to define this state of affairs, one that indeed is rather primitive and old fashioned, as unearned privilege. No, it was definitely earned, and those who earned were kind enough to earn enough of it for there to be some left for us today, and part of the gains is a mental advancement that lead to the British Empire deciding that slavery was bad and ending it. You don't get that without there being a powerful enough empire that has the clout required to implement such a shift in worldwide thought.

Picking and choosing bits and pieces and over-focusing on the ones that hinder you while ignoring the multitudes of benefits that are also derived from them is not gonna convince anyone who is right-thinking but not personally oppressed by this system that there's anything wrong with it.

No, what you do is accept it as being the best we could do at the time and moving forward in a better direction since we're in the future and we know better now. All the while being grateful for whatever gains we got from the efforts of the people in the past, rather than ignoring them because of all the ills that had to be done to obtain those gains.

 

[Buyetyen]

No, what you do is accept it as being the best we could do at the time and moving forward in a better direction since we're in the future and we know better now. All the while being grateful for whatever gains we got from the efforts of the people in the past, rather than ignoring them because of all the ills that had to be done to obtain those gains.

The idea that we cannot do both is an invention of people who want us to choose between a sanitized for public consumption parade to the heroism of dead people or the very real work of doing something about the still-real legacy of a broken system.

Picking and choosing bits and pieces and over-focusing on the ones you want to is exactly what you're doing.

 

[Dreiko]

The idea that we cannot do both is an invention of people who want us to choose between a sanitized for public consumption parade to the heroism of dead people or the very real work of doing something about the still-real legacy of a broken system.

Picking and choosing bits and pieces and over-focusing on the ones you want to is exactly what you're doing.

The system is not broken, it's the least broken system that there could be, in fact. What you see as being broken is it being merely imperfect, and of course it is, and our job is to make it closer to perfect.

The fact that it isn't perfect isn't an indictment of anyone or anything, and it is ignorant to overlook the alternatives that were also very real possibilities had history not played out the same way simply because there's obviously still issues.



What you have here is sore losers trying to make up for their ancestral defeat at the expense of real progress, as opposed to working within the world that their ancestor's defeat created in order to benefit their present and future selves. People are still not over it and are trying to resist it instead of adapting to it, which is why there's problems. And I know this because during this era my ancestors were of the enslaved, since the ottoman empire had conquered southern europe for 400 years give or take. That's why Constantinopole is called "Istanbul" now, that's just the turkish-ized ancient greek way of saying "is tin polin" which means "to the city" in ancient greek, and "the city" can only be the one big city everyone at the time knew of, Constantinople.

Every day we treat Istanbul as if it really is a part of Turkey is a day where were put the system I have described in practice and learn to live with the losses of our ancestors, and since I don't see Turkey giving it back any time soon, miss me with the privilege and microagression BS.

 

[Trunkage]

First of all, what is "privilege"? Can you define it?

When you are born with something that others aren’t. For example, I was born with four limbs, and haven’t lost any during my time here. Others aren’t in that position

 

[Dreiko]

When you are born with something that others aren’t. For example, I was born with four limbs, and haven’t lost any during my time here. Others aren’t in that position

I think that's a useless, wrong definition.

We have to agree at a default, and that privilege is having more than that, and that having less is a deficit and doesn't make the deafault ones privileged even if they have more than the ones with the deficit.


Being born with 4 limbs is the default for humans, it's that normal, anyone who is born with fewer limbs is someone who has an exceptional, abnormal deficit which isn't the baseline to which we compare if something is privileged or not.


What people wrongly call "white privilege" is actually just the default in a lot of monocultural first world nations for every citizen there like Japan for example. So we have an issue of a lot of below-par people who need help, we don't have an issue of people being above the default, because the default here is what the default is elsewhere too and they don't have as many people below par there.


It's like you have 10 people in a race and one of them has a bike he's allowed to ride on and one of them has no legs. The people with legs are not the privileged ones, you're supposed to have legs. The person on the bike is the only one who is privileged here.

 

[Houseman]

When you are born with something that others aren’t. For example, I was born with four limbs, and haven’t lost any during my time here. Others aren’t in that position

And how do you propose we stop "advantaging" such privileged people over others with our laws?

Remove limbs from people so that everyone is equal? Metaphorically speaking, of course.

 

[Trunkage]

The system is not broken,

it's the least broken system that there could be, in fact.

I mean, that’s what every conservative as said ever, yet progress has been made over decades. It’s hard enough to say that it’s the least broken system right now.

The system works well for you. That’s awesome. It doesn’t mean it works well for everyone

What you see as being broken is it being merely imperfect, and of course it is, and our job is to make it closer to perfect..

When lobbyist stop spending money to break ‘imperfect’ the system, you may have a point
When politicians stop breaking ‘imperfecting’ laws to advantaging their buddies, you may have a point
When CEOs stop breaking ‘imperfecting’ laws just for a few extra bucks, you may have a point
Literally, the system is broken. It’s only benefits a few and disadvantages billions. The laws are made so they stay in power. It will need to significantly change, or it’s going to be replaced.

 

[Trunkage]

And how do you propose we stop "advantaging" such privileged people over others with our laws?

Remove limbs from people so that everyone is equal? Metaphorically speaking, of course.

No, helping people so that lost limb doesn’t disadvantage them sounds so much easier.

What you’re proposing requires so much more work and money

Why would your first assumption be disadvantaging everyone instead of helping the minority? It literally is counterproductive. Nobody wants that.

(Well, there are some really stupid people saying that we shouldn’t encourage parents to read to kids because some parents don’t and that disadvantages those kids. I call shenanigans and just focus on trying to help them, say in school, to catch up. Because, not only what they say is nonsense, but requires so much more effort to be able to enforce. So...not ‘nobody’. There are some really stupid people who do want to disadvantage everyone. But I’d like to help them see the error of their way instead of completely abandoning any equality/ equity talk)

 

[Dreiko]

When lobbyist stop spending money to break ‘imperfect’ the system, you may have a point
When politicians stop breaking ‘imperfecting’ laws to advantaging their buddies, you may have a point
When CEOs stop breaking ‘imperfecting’ laws just for a few extra bucks, you may have a point
Literally, the system is broken. It’s only benefits a few and disadvantages billions. The laws are made so they stay in power. It will need to significantly change, or it’s going to be replaced.

Yeah I'm all for those positions too, which is why I'm a Bernie supporter.

You don't need to damn our history to enact these changes, you don't need to go on about white privilege when the issues are cronysim and oligarchy and corruption.