Where have our Conservative members gone?

[realibrad]

Ethnic sub group?

Nope.

Redneck is an attitude, not an ethnicity.

For fuck's sake, Ozzy, how can you not know that?

Webster definition, includes white.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redneck

Cambridge definition, includes white.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/redneck

Dictionary.com definition, includes white.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/redneck

Oxford definition, includes white.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/redneck

How can race be part of the inherent meaning, and you say its not race/ethnic?

 

[ecogen]

You can't have a meaningful discussion with people when the place is censored, and the censorship is worshipped by the remaining users/losers like this is some sort of drugged up orwellian mental hospital. What is the point? You made your bed, and the day will come when you lay in it. I for one and not going to defend you. Better keep a diaper under those Pjs.

So persecuted. Cite actual examples.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Oh for fuck's sake. It's not "too strict." It is the LITERAL DEFINITION:

(and you proved his point)

rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

And once again Amused leaves off part two of the definition...

 

[dank69]

same here... i'm a Deplorable... but in this Trump economy i'm working too much to comment much. i have the feeling that things are going to get worse with this as we start winning even more Besides, i'm kind of tired of not being able to have civil conversations with folks on the other side... so i tend to lurk and let the other side have their echo chamber (venting helps keep sanity).

It's cool that Trump found you a job. I was sick of paying for your unemployment during the 8 years Obama was in charge.

 

[realibrad]

It's obvious what my point was. Resentment. dislike, hate, or whatever you want to call it can lead to unfair treatment of individuals as a result of prejudicial distinction.

I'm not understanding how you are using your terms then. Any feeling someone has toward a group that is incongruent can for sure lead to negative things. What I don't get is what you mean about environmental racism, because, I would think that it should fit both and yet you say it does not. Any treatment that is unfair is by definition unfair. What I'm having trouble with is when you say that rational beliefs should not be acted on. Are you saying that any action/reaction based on those rational feelings automatically go to the extreme of unfair treatment?

 

[dank69]

What issue(s) are you referring to?

Nice to see you trying to fill the "who me?" void left by DSF.

Also, thanks for turning this thread into a debate about the definition of racism. We haven't had that discussion here in 3 other threads for at least a few hours, I'm sure.

 

[Majes]

So, you want the richest americans to pay the same federal tax rates as filers making $85K & less than those in between pay now? That's reality.

If ridiculous standards have been imposed on business, why was it booming even before Trump took office?

Government was invented to care for the populace. The multinational capitalist lootocracy won't do it.

Yeh, I don't like Trump preaching hatred & division from the bully pulpit, either.

What kind of common sense holds that 11M illegals can be deported w/o major social strife?

No, I rather like the idea of a flat tax, but a tiered structure works well too. The top paying a little more of a percentage than the rest is fine by me.

Oh, there has to be some regulation on business, but I've seen some of the hoops local businesses have to jump through and it's just over the top...

Government should protect its citizens for sure, I don't really think it should be providing programs to prop up the unfortunate. That should be done through church and charity. Government should protect and battle exploitation. We can argue about how much and where its applied.

I'm not a Trump supporter. He has been far more of an embarrassment for this country than any president in recent memory.

Deporting 11M people? The common sense law enforcement should have kept it from getting to that. Common sense now would be a discussion of amnesty and then a look at why we keep having this problem.

See this is the problem... You assume that since I'm a conservative that I support all the current administrations policy. You attack arguments that I've never put forward. The fact is that the current administration isn't conservative. Current republicans have morphed into some corporate front...

 

[realibrad]

I would LOVE for you to cite a time in which ‘meaningful discussion’ was censored.

I am continually amazed at the ability of conservatives to view themselves as victims regardless of the circumstances.

Would that not fall foul of the rules of the forum given that you would be talking about mod actions? If not I can bring up at least one. I'm just pretty sure that if I do I will get suspended again.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I would LOVE for you to cite a time in which ‘meaningful discussion’ was censored.

I am continually amazed at the ability of conservatives to view themselves as victims regardless of the circumstances.

Compare and contrast time.

"I believe in Original Intent and we should follow what that is as best we can. Rather than making the Constitution into something other than that by fiat, we should make changes as society deems fit. Government should stay out of the business of the people except at need. People have the Constitutional right to bear arms..."

If people take positions like the above and can make arguments in support of them, they may be disagreed with and I can see some attacking, but censored and really beaten up over them? Not so much as

"We all know Hillary is guilty! Look at her emails, Bengazi, Uranium One! The Dems are for open borders and want to let the terrorists from the caravan into our country...?

Well those types are merely spewing crap by virtue of being dishonest or willfully uninformed. I can respect opinions which differ from mine and you and others as well. But willful ignorance and attacks based on lies? I've no tolerance for that and neither will people who do not embrace that kind of nonsense.

 

[umbrella39]

/check rudder forum history of lols galore..........

Everything you need to know about this poor victimized puss can be gleaned from his avatar choice...

 

[dank69]

Would that not fall foul of the rules of the forum given that you would be talking about mod actions? If not I can bring up at least one. I'm just pretty sure that if I do I will get suspended again.

Then PM him the link. Me too, please.

 

[Maxima1]

Webster definition, includes white.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redneck

Cambridge definition, includes white.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/redneck

Dictionary.com definition, includes white.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/redneck

Oxford definition, includes white.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/redneck

How can race be part of the inherent meaning, and you say its not race/ethnic?

"White" is a racial group. "Redneck" can be virtually any white ethnicity, so when a white person calls someone this, how is it about racism? For different races, it could be similar to the word "thug", but not as strongly tinged as cracker or white trash.

I'm not understanding how you are using your terms then. Any feeling someone has toward a group that is incongruent can for sure lead to negative things. What I don't get is what you mean about environmental racism, because, I would think that it should fit both and yet you say it does not. Any treatment that is unfair is by definition unfair. What I'm having trouble with is when you say that rational beliefs should not be acted on. Are you saying that any action/reaction based on those rational feelings automatically go to the extreme of unfair treatment?

You're being really obtuse. I'm not saying they didn't, for example, hire a black person because they were actually lazy and underachieving. The point is that hate, dislike or whatever you want to call it can indicate a person who would engage in prejudicial treatment of individuals as a consequence of said person harboring negative generalizations of the group of people.

 

[Paratus]

Voted early, voted often (3 times), voted Republican.

Go vote. It's important.

Of course you did.

However if you actually did enjoy your time in FPMITAP.

 

[fskimospy]

Would that not fall foul of the rules of the forum given that you would be talking about mod actions? If not I can bring up at least one. I'm just pretty sure that if I do I will get suspended again.

Maybe so. I can say in my time here I have never seen a meaningful discussion censored. The problem I see most frequently is that racists don’t believe they are racists and are just ‘telling it like it is’.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Would that not fall foul of the rules of the forum given that you would be talking about mod actions? If not I can bring up at least one. I'm just pretty sure that if I do I will get suspended again.

Here's how it works. Mods and Admins wear two hats. One is their official role, and the other as members. If you or anyone has a complaint about moderation then there is a place you can bring it to, but that is THE place, no others.

Let me give you a hypothetical and use myself when I was an Admin and Mod prior to that.

Acceptable: "You aren't being fair in your opinion/you suck".

Ok, maybe you have a point, maybe not, but that's between us within limits.

THE BIG DON'T EVER DO THIS: You aren't being fair in your opinion/you suck AS A MOD" or similar.

The difference is that in the first case you have gone as a peer attacking a peer, that is a poster. In the second you have attacked the authority of those who are charged with maintaining order and preventing you from things like being doxxed or being physically threatened. You aren't going after a poster or even me as an Admin, but my position and directly attacking my authority. No, that's an absolute non starter.

Now are we perfect? NFW and sometimes conflict results in inappropriate measures and so we have a sub which allows you to bring grievances. "He doesn't like me" isn't going to sail, but again we're imperfect and the process allows for others to give input and occasionally reverse or modify an action, but make no mistake we are the final arbiters because that's the job, but never, ever start talking about mods when they are posting in their unofficial persona.

If you have a complaint about mod actions submit it to the correct sub and it will be fairly considered.

 

[umbrella39]

Maybe so. I can say in my time here I have never seen a meaningful discussion censored. The problem I see most frequently is that racists don’t believe they are racists and are just ‘telling it like it is’.

Perfect example:

http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...ehind-republican-party.2375042/#post-36196502

but remember he was a hard core leftist before he wasn't... Seen posts like this many times... Just telling the truth posts...

 

[realibrad]

"White" is a racial group. "Redneck" can be virtually any white ethnicity, so when a white person calls someone this, how is it about racism? For different races, it could be similar to the word "thug", but not as strongly tinged as cracker or white trash.

Redneck is an ethnicity in this context. Are you saying an ethnicity can come from any other ethnicity?

Not just Thug, but as I said before, ghetto. Those are called code words for referring to "Black" people. Those appear to be equal to "Redneck" in that they do not refer a racial subgroup of white just as Thug/Ghetto do not for Black people. Thug/ghetto can be virtually any black person.

You're being really obtuse. I'm not saying they didn't, for example, hire a black person because they were actually lazy and underachieving. The point is that hate, dislike or whatever you want to call it can indicate a person who would engage in prejudicial treatment of individuals as a consequence of said person harboring negative generalizations of the group of people.

But you said the negative generalizations were rational, and that is what is throwing me. If you wish to say it differently, then go ahead. I'm not trying to have a discussion where you are misrepresented and or I am misunderstanding.

 

[realibrad]

Here's how it works. Mods and Admins wear two hats. One is their official role, and the other as members. If you or anyone has a complaint about moderation then there is a place you can bring it to, but that is THE place, no others.

Let me give you a hypothetical and use myself when I was an Admin and Mod prior to that.

Acceptable: "You aren't being fair in your opinion/you suck".

Ok, maybe you have a point, maybe not, but that's between us within limits.

THE BIG DON'T EVER DO THIS: You aren't being fair in your opinion/you suck AS A MOD" or similar.

The difference is that in the first case you have gone as a peer attacking a peer, that is a poster. In the second you have attacked the authority of those who are charged with maintaining order and preventing you from things like being doxxed or being physically threatened. You aren't going after a poster or even me as an Admin, but my position and directly attacking my authority. No, that's an absolute non starter.

Now are we perfect? NFW and sometimes conflict results in inappropriate measures and so we have a sub which allows you to bring grievances. "He doesn't like me" isn't going to sail, but again we're imperfect and the process allows for others to give input and occasionally reverse or modify an action, but make no mistake we are the final arbiters because that's the job, but never, ever start talking about mods when they are posting in their unofficial persona.

If you have a complaint about mod actions submit it to the correct sub and it will be fairly considered.

Right, but if we are then talking about discussions stopped because a Mod did it, that would sure seem to be in the 2nd. If I were to bring up what is asked, I would implicitly saying in the public forum that I am disagreeing with a Mod action. That would be an infraction no?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Right, but if we are then talking about discussions stopped because a Mod did it, that would sure seem to be in the 2nd. If I were to bring up what is asked, I would implicitly saying in the public forum that I am disagreeing with a Mod action. That would be an infraction no?

I would need specifics and that would need to be via PM and my opinion would not apply especially as this is no longer Anand's site and I left before the change. Also I carry no more weight than you and can't advise you more than I already have. In any case the proper action in public would be to bring it to the mod forum and ask what specific rules were violated. Best to leave the discussion of mod actions now before it's seen as more than what you may intend. Let it go here.

 

[realibrad]

Then PM him the link. Me too, please.

I sent a PM to him, but I don't think I will to you. Him and I have had it out, but I think he is far more trustworthy.

 

[Greenman]

Maybe so. I can say in my time here I have never seen a meaningful discussion censored. The problem I see most frequently is that racists don’t believe they are racists and are just ‘telling it like it is’.

Anything a member feels is censorship has to be addressed in moderator discussions. No discussion of actions taken by the moderators is allowed outside that forum.

 

[Amused]

And once again Amused leaves off part two of the definition...

Part two clarifies and expands on part one. A belief in racial superiority is still a requirement:

"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."


​

I find it funny that you think that sentence means racism isn't a belief in racial superiority when it clearly states it is.

 

[dank69]

I sent a PM to him, but I don't think I will to you. Him and I have had it out, but I think he is far more trustworthy.

That's fine. I'd be interested to know why you don't think I am trustworthy though.

 

[pmv]

Redneck is an ambiguous one. It surely includes both race and class? And maybe geography (not many rednecks in inner city areas). But probably not as intrinsically unpleasant a term as 'white trash'. Don't analogous terms and groups exist all over the world? Australians have an equivalent, no? We don't really have much of a rural working-class here, as most working class people moved to urban areas over a century ago so I'm not sure we even have an equivalent term. "Country folk" seem to be generally better-off than average.

I don't think it's definitively a slur, because the associations are not entirely negative (some seem to embrace the term) and the racial aspect doesn't involve disadvantage or powerlessness. But the class part of it means I'd be wary of using it, personally.

 

[realibrad]

Redneck is an ambiguous one. It surely includes both race and class? And maybe geography (not many rednecks in inner city areas). But probably not as intrinsically unpleasant a term as 'white trash'. Don't analogous terms and groups exist all over the world? Australians have an equivalent, no? We don't really have much of a rural working-class here, as most working class people moved to urban areas over a century ago so I'm not sure we even have an equivalent term. "Country folk" seem to be generally better-off than average.

I don't think it's definitively a slur, because the associations are not entirely negative (some seem to embrace the term) and the racial aspect doesn't involve disadvantage or powerlessness. But the class part of it means I'd be wary of using it, personally.

While not as bad, it for sure carries a negative connotation. Embracing the term does not seem to change much, as its not uncommon for a group to embrace a term. Its how the N word has changed and almost nobody would say that because of that its not intrinsically a slur because not all associations are entirely negative.

Also, keep in mind this stems from this...

"The lookism racist discriminates because he doesn't have a preference for their appearance.

The environmental racist discriminates because he resents how they are due to various factors that make them violent and uneducated."

To me both of those statements could be used to describe a situation with Rednecks. Its a perspective that I cannot make sense of.