Rich white woman claims parts of America aren't safe

[sickdsm]

Could very well be an Onion article. It sounds as if she's been totally unaware that there's been this issue since before America was even colonized, regardless of race.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/04/13/charlize-theron-considers-leaving-america-because-racism-trump-administration

Actress Charlize Theron said in an interview that she has considered leaving the United States for the sake of her adopted children due to increased concerns over "racism."

"I don’t even know how to talk about the last year under our new administration. But racism is much more alive and well than people thought," she told Elle Magazine.

Theron said due to the current political and social climates in the country, she wants to ensure her African-American children, ages six and two, feel safe.


"There are places in this country where, if I got a job, I wouldn’t take it. I wouldn’t travel with my kids to some parts of America, and that’s really problematic," she said.

"There are a lot of times when I look at my kids and I’m like, If this continues, I might have to [leave America]. Because the last thing I want is for my children to feel unsafe."

Theron, 42, was born in South Africa and grew up during the country's apartheid era.

[z0sa]

fight racism by being politically correct about exactly where that racism exists..? Seriously, say some damn names. Or is your kids’ safety thanks to these well kept secrets and other minority or mixed race families need not apply?

[ElNono]

Does she really need to name names?

At least she did have first hand experience with white privilege, tbh...

[Spurminator]

Y'all get seriously worked up over celebrities. Maybe take a break from FOX Insider. The quotes around "racism" in the first sentence should be your first clue that you're reading a site designed to appeal to your indignation.


fight racism by being politically correct about exactly where that racism exists..? Seriously, say some damn names. Or is your kids’ safety thanks to these well kept secrets and other minority or mixed race families need not apply?

Is it really that vague to you?

[sickdsm]

Y'all get seriously worked up over celebrities. Maybe take a break from FOX Insider. The quotes around "racism" in the first sentence should be your first clue that you're reading a site designed to appeal to your indignation.



Is it really that vague to you?

Google Pixel with my Google feed. It was tagged under United States of America. Right below the blizzard warning and above a football story. When you assume that I'm a fox insider die hard reader, your jumping to inaccurate conclusions. Much like a racist would do based on the surface.

[sickdsm]

Or should I take a break from the fear mongering Google?

[Nathan89]

Does she really need to name names?

At least she did have first hand experience with white privilege, tbh...

White privilege is term popularized by an idiot women studies student. She wrote a shitty paper and idiots ran with it.

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-origins-of-privilege

[z0sa]

She need not say anything. But since she felt compelled to, fuck yes I want specifics. How do you address a problem if you aren’t even capable of acknowledging it? Just seems like a broad brush to paint with.

[Spurminator]

Google Pixel with my Google feed. It was tagged under United States of America. Right below the blizzard warning and above a football story. When you assume that I'm a fox insider die hard reader, your jumping to inaccurate conclusions. Much like a racist would do based on the surface.

I didn't assume you're a die-hard reader, but you were impressed enough by the journalistic integrity that you started a thread with the article when your intelligence should have been insulted by it.

I also have a Pixel. The feed aggregates stories that your search and internet history show you have specific interest in. Have you been looking at Charlize nudies recently?

[Spurminator]

She need not say anything. But since she felt compelled to, fuck yes I want specifics. How do you address a problem if you aren’t even capable of acknowledging it? Just seems like a broad brush to paint with.

Take a few guesses what a mother of black children might be worried about, and which areas of the country those concerns might be amplified.

Or, if you're really that interested, I'm sure the Elle Magazine interview that this article was written to get you all pissy about will have more details.

[sickdsm]

I didn't assume you're a die-hard reader, but you were impressed enough by the journalistic integrity that you started a thread with the article when your intelligence should have been insulted by it.

I also have a Pixel. The feed aggregates stories that your search and internet history show you have specific interest in. Have you been looking at Charlize nudies recently?

You need a screenshot dumbass? I stated what the tag was already. Your sure that's the angle you want to go with?

[Avante]

Never had any problems ever because of race. Then again, I don't hang out where I OBVIOUSLY shouldn't.

I also don't go to a liqour store at 1am in the morning. Don't drive around at 3am.

[Spurminator]

You need a screenshot dumbass? I stated what the tag was already. Your sure that's the angle you want to go with?

:lol You think every article has a single tag? You think your interest in the United States of America is what prompted Google to serve you this specific story?

Google obviously thought you'd be especially interested in Charlize Theron's thoughts on racism in America, from a FOX Insider perspective. Looks like they were on point.

[ElNono]

White privilege is term popularized by an idiot women studies student. She wrote a shitty paper and idiots ran with it.

https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-origins-of-privilege

I was being sarcastic, but she did grow up in South Africa during the white colonialism (aka apartheid)

[ElNono]

She need not say anything. But since she felt compelled to, fuck yes I want specifics. How do you address a problem if you aren’t even capable of acknowledging it? Just seems like a broad brush to paint with.

If she says 'Texas', then she's generalizing, because peeps would quickly run to point out Austin as an exception and mecca of hipsterism...

You can't win that battle, tbh... but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be talked about.

[Spurminator]

:lol I think Nathan has an alert set up for "white privilege."

[sickdsm]

:lol You think every article has a single tag? You think your interest in the United States of America is what prompted Google to serve you this specific story?

Google obviously thought you'd be especially interested in Charlize Theron's thoughts on racism in America, from a FOX Insider perspective. Looks like they were on point.
And you can prove that? Do you want a screenshot of my feed serious also? Wouldn't you know, she doesn't show up in either that or my Google ad profile (just looked at it a few weeks ago)


Getting pretty desperate there trying to peg me as a huge Theron fan.

[sickdsm]

Spurminator has a conspiracy theory so far fetched he has indicted Google into purposely mistagging a topic, and hiding the interests to force me to scroll past a story that only a fox fanboy would see otherwise. Tell me, do you believe the world is flat also?

[ElNono]

Honestly, not surprised Google raised that story, they know what you ate this morning, tbh...

Plus, nothing wrong with nudies, IMO

[sickdsm]

Honestly, not surprised Google raised that story, they know what you ate this morning, tbh...

Plus, nothing wrong with nudies, IMO
I'm married with children. I'm not a stranger to redtube but to discredit a thread based on what and how it came across me is rediculous.

[Spurminator]

And you can prove that? Do you want a screenshot of my feed serious also? Wouldn't you know, she doesn't show up in either that or my Google ad profile (just looked at it a few weeks ago)

Getting pretty desperate there trying to peg me as a huge Theron fan.

I didn't expect the Charlize nudie remark to set you into such a spiral tbh.


Spurminator has a conspiracy theory so far fetched he has indicted Google into purposely mistagging a topic, and hiding the interests to force me to scroll past a story that only a fox fanboy would see otherwise. Tell me, do you believe the world is flat also?

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's some kind of wild and sinister conspiracy theory. All I'm saying is the articles you see in your feed are based on a variety of interests. There's usually not just one tag in each article that's relevant to you.

It's not a conspiracy and it's not a theory. :lol comparing it to flat earth

[Spurminator]

to discredit a thread based on what and how it came across me is rediculous.

I'm not discrediting your thread based on how you got the article, I'm saying it's a stupid thing to care about at all and especially from the specific source you quoted.

The discussion over Pixel's newsfeed could have stopped after one or two posts if you wanted it to.

[Winehole23]

If she says 'Texas', then she's generalizing, because peeps would quickly run to point out Austin as an exception and mecca of hipsterism....by some measures, Austin, TX is the most segregated major city in the US.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/what-nobody-says-about-austin/
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/23/austin-most-economically-segregated-metro-area/

Four of the ten most segregated cities in the US are in Texas:

https://www.citylab.com/life/2015/02/americas-most-economically-segregated-cities/385709/

Austin's African_American population is declining:


Austin, once considered a safe haven for freed slaves, has become the only one of the country’s 10-fastest growing cities to see its African-American population decline [ (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/insts/iupra/_files/pdf/Austin%20AA%20pop%20policy%20brief_FINAL.pdf)from 2000-2010],

http://projects.statesman.com/news/economic-mobility/

[DMX7]

Racism is everywhere where there are different races coexisting.

[Chris]

Want to see segregation and racism in Texas? Go to Bryan/College Station :tu

[SnakeBoy]

If she says 'Texas', then she's generalizing, because peeps would quickly run to point out Austin as an exception and mecca of hipsterism...

You can't win that battle, tbh... but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be talked about.

Yeah if she generalizes then she loses and if she names specific unsafe areas they will be predominately minority communities and she'll be a racist.

[ElNono]

Yeah if she generalizes then she loses and if she names specific unsafe areas they will be predominately minority communities and she'll be a racist.

All I'm saying is that you don't need to name specific cities or states to be aware that there are stronger racial tensions in some areas than in others. Race in this country has been historically a wedge issue, even much after the civil rights act. That is indisputable.

We should face racial disputes/arguments head on if we're to get past them. Denying it exists or avoiding engaging in them is just kicking the problem forward.

Heck, Fox knows race baiting sells, that's why we're engaging in it, and as it's been the case, it's a well known polarizing subject.

[ElNono]

by some measures, Austin, TX is the most segregated major city in the US.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/what-nobody-says-about-austin/
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/23/austin-most-economically-segregated-metro-area/

Four of the ten most segregated cities in the US are in Texas:

https://www.citylab.com/life/2015/02/americas-most-economically-segregated-cities/385709/

Austin's African_American population is declining:

http://projects.statesman.com/news/economic-mobility/

Well, there you go. If she names Austin, then it's because it's the nerds that are racist...

It completely misses the mark, IMO. I'm sure she would rather be on a country where the color of your skin really didn't affect people interaction or opinions. Who wouldn't?

[Nathan89]

What country is that? The countries without free speech so they bite their tongue in fear of being jailed?

[ElNono]

What country is that? The countries without free speech so they bite their tongue in fear of being jailed?

We should use that right, don't you agree? Despite the disagreements?

You can always do worse: that's no consolation or a justification not to want to improve.

[AaronY]

meanwhile

950902661808840704

[sickdsm]

I'm not discrediting your thread based on how you got the article, I'm saying it's a stupid thing to care about at all and especially from the specific source you quoted.

The discussion over Pixel's newsfeed could have stopped after one or two posts if you wanted it to.

By letting you make rediculous assumptions.


I'm not jerking off to old actress photos while mass watching Fox.


I'll pointing out the irony of a"let them eat cake" liberal elite being TOTALLY out of touch with the America everyone else knows.

[sickdsm]

meanwhile

950902661808840704

What happened in 06?

[boutons_deux]

What happened in 06?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/12/crime.rate/

[DMC]

She ought to leave. She should go somewhere where there's not so much racism like Africa or Mexico China or Japan

[Trill Clinton]

her fears are valid

985126301173518337

984891492304080899

[Spurminator]

I'll pointing out the irony of a "let them eat cake" liberal elite being TOTALLY out of touch with the America everyone else knows.

No one else is concerned for the safety of their children in America?

[sickdsm]

her fears are valid

985126301173518337

984891492304080899

This is unprecedented prior to the last election? Those places and people are scattered all over for everyone.

[sickdsm]

No one else is concerned for the safety of their children in America?
No one that I know thought life was all gumdrops and lollipops suddenly become woke to the thought that maybe a white guy probably wasn't welcome in certain Urban areas or a black kid would get shot for holding some Skittles.

You don't believe racism existed in that sense 5,10,30, etc years ago?

[Spurminator]

No one that I know thought life was all gumdrops and lollipops suddenly become woke to the thought that maybe a white guy probably wasn't welcome in certain Urban areas or a black kid would get shot for holding some Skittles.

You don't believe racism existed in that sense 5,10,30, etc years ago?

From the brief FOX Insider snippet you provided, I don't see where she said any of that. Did you read the Elle Magazine interview? Did she suggest this is a new phenomenon and that everything was gumdrops and lollipops before? Did she have kids 10-30 years ago that she would be concerned about back then?

Here's how interviews work. When the interviewer asks the interviewee about her personal feelings on a topic, she gives an answer, and that answer is printed. Then, usually, FOX News prints some story about it because their readers love getting angry about celebrities not named Ted Nugent or Stacey Blue or Hank Williams Jr. or whatever that Duck Dynasty guy's name is.

It's not like Charlize Theron called a press conference to discuss her new feelings on race in America. She answered a question and you started a thread to congratulate yourself for being more in-tune with American racial concerns.

[Nathan89]

her fears are valid

985126301173518337

984891492304080899

White men get the police called on them for being with their children, at the park, or helping lost children and all I hear is "white male privilege" from the idiots. I guess they should fear living in the US as well. The only people these things don't happen to is women tbh.

[Pavlov]

White men get the police called on them for being with their children, at the park, or helping lost children and all I hear is "white male privilege" from the idiots. I guess they should fear living in the US as well. The only people these things don't happen to is women tbh.You're the real victim here, whitey.

[Nathan89]

You're the real victim here, whitey.

Just pointing out facts. Thanks for your racist nonsense.

[Pavlov]

Just pointing out facts. Thanks for your racist nonsense.The fact is you want desperately to be the victim.

Thanks for your racist nonsense.

[Nathan89]

The fact is you want desperately to be the victim.

Thanks for your racist nonsense.

Offering perspective is not being the victim.

[Pavlov]

Offering perspective is not being the victim.I don't think you are actually a victim. You just really want to be one for some weird reason.

[boutons_deux]

Of course, racist Fox News pushes this article, and your ST racists pile on

[Nathan89]

I don't think you are actually a victim. You just really want to be one for some weird reason.

I didn't claim to be a victim. I was offering counter perspective to show why that person was wrong. I never brought myself into the conversation. I never talked about my personal experience. You are just being an idiot.

[sickdsm]

From the brief FOX Insider snippet you provided, I don't see where she said any of that. Did you read the Elle Magazine interview? Did she suggest this is a new phenomenon and that everything was gumdrops and lollipops before? Did she have kids 10-30 years ago that she would be concerned about back then?

Here's how interviews work. When the interviewer asks the interviewee about her personal feelings on a topic, she gives an answer, and that answer is printed. Then, usually, FOX News prints some story about it because their readers love getting angry about celebrities not named Ted Nugent or Stacey Blue or Hank Williams Jr. or whatever that Duck Dynasty guy's name is.

It's not like Charlize Theron called a press conference to discuss her new feelings on race in America. She answered a question and you started a thread to congratulate yourself for being more in-tune with American racial concerns.

r.

CH: You’re raising two children of color. Obviously, coming from South Africa, you know a lot about racial inequality, but what are your thoughts on Black Lives Matter and our current climate?

CT: Being raised during the apartheid era in South Africa made me so hyperaware of equality and human rights. Of course, I have two black kids, but that was always something I was passionate about. I don’t even know how to talk about the last year under our new administration. But racism is much more alive and well than people thought. We can’t deny it anymore. We have to be vocal. There are places in this country where, if I got a job, I wouldn’t take it. I wouldn’t travel with my kids to some parts of America, and that’s really problematic. There are a lot of times when I look at my kids and I’m like, If this continues, I might have to [leave America]. Because the last thing I want is for my children to feel unsafe


From Elle.


Or would you prefer another source with a backstory behind it?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/charlize-theron-has-considered-leaving-us-safety-her-black-children-1102563


Sounds pretty similar.

[sickdsm]

Of course, racist Fox News pushes this article, and your ST racists pile on

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/charlize-theron-has-considered-leaving-us-safety-her-black-children-1102563


Your move.

[boutons_deux]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/charlize-theron-has-considered-leaving-us-safety-her-black-children-1102563


Your move.

Fox ran the article for its racist angle, your move. Nothing inflames you "politically correct" racists more than being declared a racist.

[Spurminator]

r.

CH: You’re raising two children of color. Obviously, coming from South Africa, you know a lot about racial inequality, but what are your thoughts on Black Lives Matter and our current climate?

CT: Being raised during the apartheid era in South Africa made me so hyperaware of equality and human rights. Of course, I have two black kids, but that was always something I was passionate about. I don’t even know how to talk about the last year under our new administration. But racism is much more alive and well than people thought. We can’t deny it anymore. We have to be vocal. There are places in this country where, if I got a job, I wouldn’t take it. I wouldn’t travel with my kids to some parts of America, and that’s really problematic. There are a lot of times when I look at my kids and I’m like, If this continues, I might have to [leave America]. Because the last thing I want is for my children to feel unsafe


From Elle.


Or would you prefer another source with a backstory behind it?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/charlize-theron-has-considered-leaving-us-safety-her-black-children-1102563


Sounds pretty similar.

So she didn't say everything was peachy before or that this is something she just discovered about America. So you added that to validate your righteous indignation.

As is, sounds not unlike thousands of other mothers of black children in America. The only reason you know her opinion is someone asked her. You got mad because she's white and a celebrity, neither of which prevent her from having concerns for her black kids.

[sickdsm]

Fox ran the article for its racist angle, your move. Nothing inflames you "politically correct" racists more than being declared a racist.

Very similar article. Hollywood reporter ran it for it's racist angle also?

[sickdsm]

So she didn't say everything was peachy before or that this is something she just discovered about America. So you added that to validate your righteous indignation.

As is, sounds not unlike thousands of other mothers of black children in America. The only reason you know her opinion is someone asked her. You got mad because she's white and a celebrity, neither of which prevent her from having concerns for her black kids.

Racism is much more alive than people thought.(under the new administration)........ We can't deny it anymore.....


Who besides her was denying it? Kaepernick wasn't. Was she unaware of Trayvon Martin? Do i REALLY need to list more examples? We implies her and others. She was saying her and others were trying to deny it. Who here has been denying racism has been going on to the extent it has been?


She's been hyper aware of racism issues her entire life but suddenly she's woke AF.

[sickdsm]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/12/crime.rate/

"We really don't know what's driving this," Hertling said. "We need to be be careful not to overinterpret or overreact."


Bou literally googled up and posted an article basically saying we don't fucking know what happened.

[Pavlov]

Racism is much more alive than people thought.(under the new administration)........ We can't deny it anymore.....


Who besides her was denying it? Kaepernick wasn't. Was she unaware of Trayvon Martin? Do i REALLY need to list more examples? We implies her and others. She was saying her and others were trying to deny it. Who here has been denying racism has been going on to the extent it has been?


She's been hyper aware of racism issues her entire life but suddenly she's woke AF.Maybe the Starbuck's incident was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Or the "directions" shooting.

Not a good week tbh.

[Spurminator]

Who besides her was denying it? Kaepernick wasn't. Was she unaware of Trayvon Martin? Do i REALLY need to list more examples? We implies her and others. She was saying her and others were trying to deny it. Who here has been denying racism has been going on to the extent it has been?

She's been hyper aware of racism issues her entire life but suddenly she's woke AF.

No one's calling her woke. No one's congratulating her at all, really. Just a bunch of triggered conservatives getting pissy because a celebrity they don't like opened her yap about politics. It really is hilarious how mad you are about this, and how you have to invent a perspective that you can justify your anger over. Her comments are so benign they're hardly newsworthy, yet here you are.

[AaronY]

White men get the police called on them for being with their children, at the park, or helping lost children and all I hear is "white male privilege" from the idiots. I guess they should fear living in the US as well. The only people these things don't happen to is women tbh.
Poor white guys. We're such an oppressed group in America now

[AaronY]

She ought to leave. She should go somewhere where there's not so much racism like Africa or Mexico China or Japan
I actually agree with this scalding hot take. Crime is much lower now than in decades past. People literally get triggered when they hear that as they want to believe its getting worse for some reason.

Here is a fascinating article on people believing crime is getting worse when its not http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/16/voters-perceptions-of-crime-continue-to-conflict-with-reality/

[Nathan89]

Poor white guys. We're such an oppressed group in America now

I could make the same comment about any race in America tbh. Nobody has it that bad because of their race.

[Spurminator]

I could make the same comment about any race in America tbh.

We know you would.


Nobody has it that bad because of their race.

You're right, everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race.

[Nathan89]

We know you would.



You're right, everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race.[/COLOR]

Nice strawman. Never said everyone is on the same playing field. That will never happen.

[Spurminator]

Nice strawman. Never said everyone is on the same playing field. That will never happen.

You: Nobody has it that bad because of their race.

Me: This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today.

You: That's a strawman

[DMC]

I could make the same comment about any race in America tbh. Nobody has it that bad because of their race.



You're right, everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race.


You: Nobody has it that bad because of their race.

Me: This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today.

You: That's a strawman
That's just flat out lying. The left has this tendency to want to change the words they are arguing against. You see it time after time here. It's as if the actual quote is no longer available and you cannot recall exactly what was said, but the truth is that you can see plainly what was said and it doesn't fit your narrative, so you alter the words.

You're not alone.

[DMC]

No one's calling her woke. No one's congratulating her at all, really. Just a bunch of triggered conservatives getting pissy because a celebrity they don't like opened her yap about politics. It really is hilarious how mad you are about this, and how you have to invent a perspective that you can justify your anger over. Her comments are so benign they're hardly newsworthy, yet here you are.

:lol

[Spurminator]

That's just flat out lying. The left has this tendency to want to change the words they are arguing against. You see it time after time here. It's as if the actual quote is no longer available and you cannot recall exactly what was said, but the truth is that you can see plainly what was said and it doesn't fit your narrative, so you alter the words.

You're not alone.

Professor Semantics to the rescue again. :lol

Anyway, those are my words I paraphrased, not Nathan's. Feel free to spend the next two pages dissecting how one sentence is fundamentally different from the other, we're all dying to read it.

[AaronY]

I could make the same comment about any race in America tbh. Nobody has it that bad because of their race.
You're such a whiny stupid little bitch.

But what can be expected from a retarded impressionable goober who went from supporting Bernie's attacks on billionaires tho trickle down economics in the space of a year?

I mean honestly you're too fucking stupid to live. One insanely retarded ideology to the next. I sincerely expect you to convert to Rastafarianisim in 6 months

[DMC]

Professor Semantics to the rescue again. :lol

Anyway, those are my words I paraphrased, not Nathan's. Feel free to spend the next two pages dissecting how one sentence is fundamentally different from the other, we're all dying to read it.

:lol "paraphrased"
:lol "semantics"

Those two sentences aren't even remotely similar. The first is a strawman and the 2nd is you trying to recover from it by rewording it. Do you think Nathan's response was to your paraphrase?

Why do you feel the need to paraphrase yourself? :lol

Try approaching it straight on instead of sideways.

[Spurminator]

Those two sentences aren't even remotely similar. The first is a strawman and the 2nd is you trying to recover from it by rewording it. Do you think Nathan's response was to your paraphrase?

What do you think the sentence "You're right, everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race" in response to "Nobody has it that bad because of their race" actually meant, if not "This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today." ?


Why do you feel the need to paraphrase yourself?

Because the paraphrase fit the format of that post better than a straight quote of a sarcastic post. The point was to translate the post without sarcasm. I didn't expect the Semantics Inquisition.



Try approaching it straight on instead of sideways.

Try approaching any argument without obsessing over paraphrasing. It's kinda your thing now and it's pretty silly.

[Nathan89]

You're such a whiny stupid little bitch.

But what can be expected from a retarded impressionable goober who went from supporting Bernie's attacks on billionaires tho trickle down economics in the space of a year?

I mean honestly you're too fucking stupid to live. One insanely retarded ideology to the next. I sincerely expect you to convert to Rastafarianisim in 6 months

:lmao

"If you make a decision then commit to it for life. That's what us smart folks do." :lol

[DMC]

What do you think the sentence "You're right, everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race" in response to "Nobody has it that bad because of their race" actually meant, if not "This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today." ?



Because the paraphrase fit the format of that post better than a straight quote of a sarcastic post. The point was to translate the post without sarcasm. I didn't expect the Semantics Inquisition.




Try approaching any argument without obsessing over paraphrasing. It's kinda your thing now and it's pretty silly.

You're misusing the term "paraphrasing" here. You didn't paraphrase anything except perhaps your meaning, because the actual sentence was obviously meant as sarcasm. So if you want to paraphrase yourself, at least make it somewhat similar to your original statement. It was obvious Nathan was responding to that comment at face value. You did infer that he said something that he did not say.

Heaven forbid someone point out that you changed your entire sentence, but not his, to try to get around the strawman you created.

[DMC]

You: Nobody has it that bad because of their race.

Me: You're right, everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race.

You: That's a strawman

Strawman

Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

Here I have corrected your dishonest paraphrasing. Now does it appear as a strawman? Odd how facts work.

[Spurminator]

You're misusing the term "paraphrasing" here. You didn't paraphrase anything except perhaps your meaning, because the actual sentence was obviously meant as sarcasm. So if you want to paraphrase yourself, at least make it somewhat similar to your original statement.

par·a·phrase
ˈperəˌfrāz/
verb


1.
express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.



That's what I did.


It was obvious Nathan was responding to that comment at face value. You did infer that he said something that he did not say.

Heaven forbid someone point out that you changed your entire sentence, but not his, to try to get around the strawman you created.

In response to "Poor white guys. We're such an oppressed group in America now", Nathan responded, "I could make the same comment about any race in America tbh. Nobody has it that bad because of their race."

What do you believe I inferred that was not present in Nathan's post, that I later misrepresented in my paraphrase?

[Spurminator]

Strawman

Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

Here I have corrected your dishonest paraphrasing. Now does it appear as a strawman? Odd how facts work.

:lol What was dishonest about the paraphrase? What would be the point of just repeating myself word for word in a second post if the entire point was to illustrate the direct meaning behind the sarcasm?

If I wanted to do it your way I might as well have just replied "Nuh uh!"

[DMC]

par·a·phrase
ˈperəˌfrāz/
verb


1.
express the meaning of (the writer or speaker or something written or spoken) using different words, especially to achieve greater clarity.



That's what I did.



In response to "Poor white guys. We're such an oppressed group in America now", Nathan responded, "I could make the same comment about any race in America tbh. Nobody has it that bad because of their race."

What do you believe I inferred that was not present in Nathan's post, that I later misrepresented in my paraphrase?

But you didn't do it to achieve greater clarity. You did it to debunk the "strawman" claim levied on you by Nathan. Nathan didn't say he didn't understand your comment. You didn't say "allow me to rephrase that".

Plus, when you use sarcasm, paraphrasing as you did doesn't accurately show any sarcasm was ever used. So you didn't really paraphrase yourself, you simply dropped the sarcasm and pretended that's what Nathan was responding to. It's becoming quite common to see blatant dishonesty disguised as a paraphrase when the real quote is apparent for all to read, on the same page.

[DMC]

:lol What was dishonest about the paraphrase? What would be the point of just repeating myself word for word in a second post if the entire point was to illustrate the direct meaning behind the sarcasm?

If I wanted to do it your way I might as well have just replied "Nuh uh!"

Read the quote I altered. Did you create a strawman or not?

it's also becoming popular to try to evade responsibility for your own comments by the use of the emoji.. :downspin:

[Spurminator]

But you didn't do it to achieve greater clarity. You did it to debunk the "strawman" claim levied on you by Nathan. Nathan didn't say he didn't understand your comment. You didn't say "allow me to rephrase that".

Plus, when you use sarcasm, paraphrasing as you did doesn't accurately show any sarcasm was ever used. So you didn't really paraphrase yourself, you simply dropped the sarcasm and pretended that's what Nathan was responding to. It's becoming quite common to see blatant dishonesty disguised as a paraphrase when the real quote is apparent for all to read, on the same page.

Are you... Are you okay?

Look, just tell me what YOU think my sarcastic comment implied that was misrepresented in my paraphrase.

[Spurminator]

Read the quote I altered. Did you create a strawman or not?

No. But I'm open to hearing what you think the strawman was if you're done with the Captain Semantics act.

[Spurminator]

it's also becoming popular to try to evade responsibility for your own comments by the use of the emoji.. :downspin:

7 posts above mine:


:lol "paraphrased"
:lol "semantics"

Those two sentences aren't even remotely similar. The first is a strawman and the 2nd is you trying to recover from it by rewording it. Do you think Nathan's response was to your paraphrase?

Why do you feel the need to paraphrase yourself? :lol

Try approaching it straight on instead of sideways.

:lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao

[DMC]

Are you... Are you okay?

Look, just tell me what YOU think my sarcastic comment implied that was misrepresented in my paraphrase.

Your comments implied that Nathan was claiming all races are born on a level playing field. Nathan never made such a claim. Therefore you created a straw man. This is made obvious in post #72 where I used your original statement, that Nathan was responding to, instead of the "paraphrasing" attempt by you in which you somehow disregarded the fact that Nathan was responding to your original statement. Nathan called you out for creating a straw man. You then used your 2nd version instead of your first version.

Whether or not your 1st statement was sarcasm is irrelevant. Your paraphrase of yourself totally reversed the statement you made, yet you feel like it's somehow the same statement.

"You're right, everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race."

vs

"This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today"

The fact that you used "you're right" just before the sarcasm in the original statement makes it a straw man, since you're inferring that Nathan was saying that.

You claim Nathan called Straw man on the 2nd statement when it's obvious he called it on the 1st.

[DMC]

7 posts above mine:



:lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao

You also cannot understand sarcasm. (my spinning emoji).

Allow me to paraphrase.

It's very uncommon for people to hide behind emojis in order to avoid responsibility for their statements.

[Th'Pusher]

Nothing better than a pedantic troll tbh.

[Spurminator]

Your comments implied that Nathan was claiming all races are born on a level playing field. Nathan never made such a claim. Therefore you created a straw man.

This is made obvious in post #72 where I used your original statement, that Nathan was responding to, instead of the "paraphrasing" attempt by you in which you somehow disregarded the fact that Nathan was responding to your original statement. Nathan called you out for creating a straw man. You then used your 2nd version instead of your first version.

Whether or not your 1st statement was sarcasm is irrelevant. Your paraphrase of yourself totally reversed the statement you made, yet you feel like it's somehow the same statement.

"You're right, everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race."

vs

"This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today"

The fact that you used "you're right" just before the sarcasm in the original statement makes it a straw man, since you're inferring that Nathan was saying that.

You claim Nathan called Straw man on the 2nd statement when it's obvious he called it on the 1st.

Christ, dude...

Nathan stated "Nobody has it that bad because of their race."

"You're right" directly responds to this statement. (If you know you're reading a sarcastic post, you would read "You're right" to mean "You're wrong.") The next step when you claim someone is wrong is to support that opinion.

To do so, I offered the point that people who are born black in America often tend to have it "that bad." Of course, given that I had opted for sarcasm in this response (introduced by the words "You're right"), I worded the supporting point sarcastically as well: "everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race."

As we've established with how "You're right" = "You're wrong" in a sarcastic sentence, the sarcastic form of a statement may involve the reversal of some words from affirmative to negative. So you would read this as "not everyone is born on an equal playing field, and history has had impact on some particular races" (which you would reasonably interpret to be blacks, assuming you're aware of slavery).

If we agree that the sincere form of "everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race" is "not everyone is born on an equal playing field, and history has had impact on some particular races (i.e. blacks)," then a logical next step is to validate the paraphrase: "This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today."

not everyone is born on an equal playing field today ---> born at a disadvantage today
and history has had impact ---> This country's history of racism causes
some particular races ---> people of color

So what you're reading as "reversing [my] statement" is actually just a natural byproduct of making a sarcastic statement non-sarcastic and then paraphrasing to improve structure and conciseness. There is nothing of substance added or removed between the two posts.

While Nathan has not since commented on this discussion (probably because he finds the compositional nit-picking as boring as everyone else), I assume he will still believe the second statement is a strawman. Not because he has a fundamental misunderstanding of sarcasm as you seem to have, but because he does not believe that disadvantaged birth falls under the umbrella of being oppressed (oppression being the topic of Aaron's post that he was responding to.)

But I don't want to put words into his mouth, that's just a guess. My point is I don't think anyone is having trouble with the paraphrased version except you. And if this still doesn't clear it up for you, sorry, but that's my final word on the subject.

:spin

[Nathan89]

"You're right, everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race."

vs

"This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today"

The fact that you used "you're right" just before the sarcasm in the original statement makes it a straw man, since you're inferring that Nathan was saying that.

You claim Nathan called Straw man on the 2nd statement when it's obvious he called it on the 1st.




While Nathan has not since commented on this discussion (probably because he finds the compositional nit-picking as boring as everyone else), I assume he will still believe the second statement is a strawman. Not because he has a fundamental misunderstanding of sarcasm as you seem to have, but because he does not believe that disadvantaged birth falls under the umbrella of being oppressed (oppression being the topic of Aaron's post that he was responding to.)

But I don't want to put words into his mouth, that's just a guess. My point is I don't think anyone is having trouble with the paraphrased version except you. And if this still doesn't clear it up for you, sorry, but that's my final word on the subject.



It's definitely nit-picking and if I were to make a quick decision on the matter I'd side with you on the paraphrasing issue. But this post by DMC puts it into perspective. He is correct imo. The subtle change of those two quotes changes it away from a strawman to a counter.

"You're right, everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race."

100% strawman. I agree with his statement about what this sarcastic statement is inferring. At the same time I recognize that everything you said is actually the opposite of what you believe.

"This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today"

This however is a counter to why I shouldn't make the comment about other races.

So even though it kinda says the same thing the subtle difference does change things. I would've never replied to your second comment with "strawman". It just doesn't fit.

[AaronY]

:lmao

"If you make a decision then commit to it for life. That's what us smart folks do." :lol
The emoticons really hide how stupid and impressionable you are.

From one life explaining retarded set of talking points to the complete opposite other like a real goober with no mind of his own. How embarrassing.

[DMC]

Christ, dude...

Nathan stated "Nobody has it that bad because of their race."

"You're right" directly responds to this statement. (If you know you're reading a sarcastic post, you would read "You're right" to mean "You're wrong.") The next step when you claim someone is wrong is to support that opinion.

To do so, I offered the point that people who are born black in America often tend to have it "that bad." Of course, given that I had opted for sarcasm in this response (introduced by the words "You're right"), I worded the supporting point sarcastically as well: "everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race."

As we've established with how "You're right" = "You're wrong" in a sarcastic sentence, the sarcastic form of a statement may involve the reversal of some words from affirmative to negative. So you would read this as "not everyone is born on an equal playing field, and history has had impact on some particular races" (which you would reasonably interpret to be blacks, assuming you're aware of slavery).

If we agree that the sincere form of "everyone is born on an equal playing field today and history has had no impact on any particular race" is "not everyone is born on an equal playing field, and history has had impact on some particular races (i.e. blacks)," then a logical next step is to validate the paraphrase: "This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today."

not everyone is born on an equal playing field today ---> born at a disadvantage today
and history has had impact ---> This country's history of racism causes
some particular races ---> people of color

So what you're reading as "reversing [my] statement" is actually just a natural byproduct of making a sarcastic statement non-sarcastic and then paraphrasing to improve structure and conciseness. There is nothing of substance added or removed between the two posts.

While Nathan has not since commented on this discussion (probably because he finds the compositional nit-picking as boring as everyone else), I assume he will still believe the second statement is a strawman. Not because he has a fundamental misunderstanding of sarcasm as you seem to have, but because he does not believe that disadvantaged birth falls under the umbrella of being oppressed (oppression being the topic of Aaron's post that he was responding to.)

But I don't want to put words into his mouth, that's just a guess. My point is I don't think anyone is having trouble with the paraphrased version except you. And if this still doesn't clear it up for you, sorry, but that's my final word on the subject.

:spin

TL;DR

The sarcastic response was also a straw man. Nathan didn't say everyone has the same level of difficulty in life regardless of race. He indicated that life is manageable regardless.

[spurraider21]

Nathan didn't say everyone has the same level of difficulty in life regardless of race. He indicated that life is manageable regardless.


That's just flat out lying. The right has this tendency to want to change the words they are arguing against. You see it time after time here. It's as if the actual quote is no longer available and you cannot recall exactly what was said, but the truth is that you can see plainly what was said and it doesn't fit your narrative, so you alter the words.

You're not alone.

[Spurminator]

TL;DR

I bet you did, though.


Nathan didn't say everyone has the same level of difficulty in life regardless of race. He indicated that life is manageable regardless.

:lol spurraider beat me to it

[DMC]

sideline chirp

Didn't ask you faggot

[DMC]

I bet you did, though.



:lol spurraider beat me to it
You'd lose that bet.

You and Philo not understanding "indicated"

Indicate:

1 Point out; show.

‘dotted lines indicate the text's margins’

:lol

[spurraider21]

Didn't ask you faggot
Oh didn’t realize that discussion was all in the form of pm

[DMC]

Sideline chirp 2

Philo with another false equivalence, smug as if he discovered something.

[Spurminator]

You'd lose that bet.

You and Philo not understanding "indicated"

Indicate:

1 Point out; show.

‘dotted lines indicate the text's margins’

:lol

Oh, it all makes sense now, I should have just said

"Me: (INDICATED) This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today."

:lol DMCmantics

[DMC]

Oh, it all makes sense now, I should have just said

"Me: (INDICATED) This country's history of racism causes many people of color to be born at a disadvantage today."

:lol DMCmantics

A straw man isn't based on an indication but on a claim of another person's position. If I asked you "where's waldo" and you pointed toward a door, I could say you indicated waldo was behind the door. I couldn't paraphrase that you said waldo was behind the door.

But you know this already. You're just cornered again and flailing. Nathan told you that you created a straw man. You did. Philo to the rescue with false equivalence doesn't save you. Philo is known to be long on drywall and short on stud, he's not that sharp.

Did any of you do your own schoolwork or is everything these days "cram for test"?

[Spurminator]

Feel free to spend the next two pages dissecting how one sentence is fundamentally different from the other, we're all dying to read it.

One page down...

[Spurminator]

But you know this already. You're just cornered again and flailing.

I am perfectly secure in my correctness, as explained in my pedantic wall of text you pretended not to read so you wouldn't have to respond to it. (Not that I'm interested in your response, nor any further effort to explain my post which you have now spent 24 hours obsessing over. I'm content to continue mocking you for pulling semantic disputes out of your ass.)

[DMC]

I am perfectly secure in my correctness, as explained in my pedantic wall of text you pretended not to read so you wouldn't have to respond to it. (Not that I'm interested in your response, nor any further effort to explain my post which you have now spent 24 hours obsessing over. I'm content to continue mocking you for pulling semantic disputes out of your ass.)

Can you summarize the WOT?

[Th'Pusher]

Can you summarize the WOT?

Why are you still pretending you didn’t read it? Everyone knows that a pedantic little troll like you is incapable of not reading that WOT.

[Trill Clinton]

Not even our soldiers are safe from attacks of racism

986236702430777344

[Pavlov]

Not even our soldiers are safe from attacks of racism

986236702430777344lol white people picking a fight at Cheddars.

[DMC]

sideline chirp 2