dumb armchair

No you claimed to be a Nazi

I described the view points of Nazis

You got mad

Backpedaled

Then claimed I lost

I didn't backpedal you fat retard

Why are people like you even in politics

Who tf cares about me being a nazi we were talking about ANARCHISM

and you didn't even represent what I believed AT ALL

because you're an armchair pseud

Lmao, I work delivery that runs to the ghetto, gave me a solid chunk of conditioning regarding black people, saying it doesn't affect my perception in noticeable ways would be lying

The decision we where having was on the difference between a state and a governing body. You claimed to be a Nazi so I pointed out the fact that you believe in x y and z because that’s what the ideology is. Then you proceeded to get upset and backpedal by saying I don’t believe in x y or z. You are the definition of dishonest like fuck off calling me a pseudo. When your whole ideology is based of bullshit pseudo race science. Like fuck outta here social Darwin looking ass.

I wouldn't say it "makes me racist" but social conditioning is 100% a factor in people that hold racist ideologies

> Lmao, I work delivery that runs to the ghetto, gave me a solid chunk of conditioning regarding black people, saying it doesn't affect my perception in noticeable ways would be lying
@Soup Can Sam

I never said they didn’t make an impression on you. But you shouldn’t use personal anecdotes to label a whole group.

Usually if someone says "delivery makes you racist" it's facetious.

Or something along those lines

Right but you simply accused the other person of using experiences of a walmart to justify latent racism which is kinda bullshit based on that one comment. I don't have any other context for this person but that was a really severe response that was only maybe half true?

> Usually if someone says "delivery makes you racist" it's facetious.
@Cobra Commander
Regardless of there intend they are still propagating this system that keep these communities marginalized.

Oh now we're onto "jokes support systems that oppress people" when the direct result of humor is to absurdify the ideas being presented

> Right but you simply accused the other person of using experiences of a walmart to justify latent racism which is kinda bullshit based on that one comment. I don't have any other context for this person but that was a really severe response that was only maybe half true?
@Soup Can Sam
Regardless of what they might feel. There actions speak louder than words. So the impression they gave of was an excuse for there racist behavior.

Well that's definitely not how speech works. Actions are what matter, speech is *not* an action.

Not really? You just assumed the worst instantly without support

They're separated for a reason.

Grouping speech under actions opens the door for justifying certain things not being allowed to be said, which is not freedom of speech, which I feel you're about to do.

It also justifies categorizing speech as violence which it is inherently not.

> Oh now we're onto "jokes support systems that oppress people" when the direct result of humor is to absurdify the ideas being presented
@Soup Can Sam

Like you agree with me words have power correct. So if we look at this through a historical lenses you realize what this is actually doing. Like you wouldn’t claim minstrel shows aren’t racist. So why apply the logic here? It’s like saying it’s just a prank bro when you clearly have alternative motives.

Yup, called it.

> It also justifies categorizing speech as violence which it is inherently not.
@Soup Can Sam

So like hypothetically if I where to threaten to kill you. It would be no violent your logic is Flawed.

No

the threat is not violence

killing me is violence

Wow

the threat is a threat of violence

Are you dense

your logic is non-existent

If I where to threaten someone it is a call to violence

If you can't seperate an action from the threat of an action, you're a wackadoodle

Yes but it is not actual violence