bpt3

36 ms·

841.
by bpt3 2y ago
> For younger people? It's no deal at all, they have no more use for the R word than you or I do in some obsolete 19th century racial slur. That's because they replaced the r word with autistic, which I presume will be the a wo
842.
by bpt3 2y ago
This is the second time you've reframed a question you asked to present my response in an inaccurate light, presumably because you weren't able to move to your next talking point from my actual response. This might work on people
843.
by bpt3 2y ago
No, they're arguing that society should punish those who spoke those ideas, where "those ideas" is whatever terminally online leftists are whinging about at the moment (i.e. a bar that is way too low for the proposed repercus
844.
by bpt3 2y ago
> So your point isn't so much that language policing costs a lot, it's that it doesn't provide any value. That's not my point. I think they're both true. > But what if it does? Why are corporations dropping it
845.
by bpt3 2y ago
You aren't using the same rhetorical devices, you're assuming a lot and pretending to be helpless. Exactly what term would you use for the groups of terminally online people who dig through decades of social media posts looking fo
846.
by bpt3 2y ago
When the mainstream left treats the woke left like as the ayran right, let me know. And I think the ayran right is more deplorable than the woke left, though probably less harmful at this point
847.
by bpt3 2y ago
It's impossible to have a respectful conversation with someone who thinks you're inherently responsible for society's ills and/or deserves to be ostracized for failing to maintain constant awareness of their jargon du jo
848.
by bpt3 2y ago
Because loudly attacking individuals for not being in complete agreement with your views is rarely effective? Even more so when some of your views are not widely seen as an agreed upon social norm. Also, I didn't see anything arguing f
849.
by bpt3 2y ago
> And how do you decide whether someone you're considering supporting is or isn't racist? Do you, by chance, use the way they talk about black people or other minorities (man that's a mouthful, maybe just shorten it to BIP
850.
by bpt3 2y ago
The "we" you mention must be an extremely small portion of society then. What percentage of Americans disagree with that definition of woke in your opinion (or with data if you have it)?
851.
by bpt3 2y ago
I think the similarities to a religion are a strong indication that there's a serious issue
852.
by bpt3 2y ago
See the article we're discussing.
853.
by bpt3 2y ago
While your example is interesting, I would at least give those people some credit for taking the action they could (even if it is largely pointless as you said). I think a better analogy is people who would criticize other heterosexual coup
854.
by bpt3 2y ago
You don't understand the difference between attempting to improve yourself and aggressively applying your definitions of words and morally acceptable behavior to others without any serious thought. Beginning by changing the language is
855.
by bpt3 2y ago
I take it as more of an indicator of how much liberal sentiment has shifted over the last 15 or so years.
856.
by bpt3 2y ago
If that were a remotely accurate definition of how it is commonly used, you'd have a point. Instead we can see you're part of the problem.
857.
by bpt3 2y ago
That's part of the problem, there is no silver bullet. I implement it by not being racist (or sexist or any other -ist) personally and refusing to support anyone who is. That's largely all anyone can do (and I have a lot more abil
858.
by bpt3 2y ago
[flagged]
859.
by bpt3 2y ago
> "determine who should be removed from society" is just a scary thought. Who gets to determine that? How can we be sure they are right? I am extremely socially liberal, but have a very hard time aligning myself with the left b
860.
by bpt3 2y ago
You missed the point of the article completely. Wokeness (as PG defined it, which I would agree is the most commonly used definition today) isn't merely realizing we should be treating people better, it's realizing that people sho
861.
by bpt3 2y ago
You read a reply from a person that doesn't like the implications of PG's statements and conclusions. Which I think is further evidence of PG's claims.
862.
by bpt3 2y ago
You don't think there's a single person on here celebrating this killing who also worked at Facebook, Google, or the like at any point in their lives?
863.
by bpt3 2y ago
Polling indicates that his support didn't move the vote totals that much. Wouldn't the major Harris donors have bought the election if you are correct though?
864.
by bpt3 2y ago
Except Harris outspent Trump overall by a significant amount.
865.
by bpt3 2y ago
Because (1) most Americans are satisfied with their healthcare and (2) the CBO doesn't think that a public option would decrease costs much if at all: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57125 In short, you're wr
866.
by bpt3 2y ago
Sounds like the city will appeal and win then.
867.
by bpt3 2y ago
Those people are your fellow city dwellers then, and deserve to be heard just as much as people in the urban core.
868.
by bpt3 2y ago
Yes, city life is objectively worse for families in most regards. That's not the fault of the suburbs.
869.
by bpt3 2y ago
When your state or county mandates free parking or any of the other complaints the parent poster had, let me know.
870.
by bpt3 2y ago
It's not random when you consider the clear motives behind this visualization.

More ›