Why are antiracists so... racist?

[Akka]

No, that's religion.

I'm pretty sure the US cause that too. Somehow.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Western civilization the United States is to blame for all of the world's wars and troubles.

With power comes responsibility...

No, that's religion.

If you want to be more precise and fair you could say a religious ideology or any ideology for that matter. But any useful ideology is just a tool for more potent and expanded existence. Just like with knife it depends on the user and how he uses it...

I'm pretty sure the US cause that too. Somehow.

To be somehow sure is a sign of sure uncertitudes.

 

[Akka]

It's called "sarcasm".

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Western civilization the United States is to blame for all of the world's wars and troubles.

The Spanish, French and the English have done their part too, and before them the Ottomans set the stage for civil wars and ethnic conflicts. Neither the Saudis nor the Japanese are innocent bystanders, and China is currently being a real dick about some islands.

 

[Akka]

Wait, are you saying race has little to no effect about how people act and the whites aren't inherently more (or less) guilty and evil than the non-whites ?
That's pretty regressive of you, man !

 

[Senethro]

You're doing that thing you talked about where a conversation happens entirely in someones head instead of whats written.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

You're doing that thing you talked about where a conversation happens entirely in someones head instead of whats written.

Sometimes the only sure way to have progressive and highly intelligent conversation after all!

 

[Akka]

You're doing that thing you talked about where a conversation happens entirely in someones head instead of whats written.

Coming from you, it's rather ironical
Especially as my post is actually pretty relevant to the post it answers to, so it seems I definitely read what is written. Maybe you're the one having problems following a discussion (considering most of your posts are just fly-by piques that rarely if ever actually engage in the arguments layed out, it might really be the case, after all).

 

[Senethro]

I used to post in longer form but I got extremely tired of people butchering my posts with quotes, keeping the fat and gristle while tossing the meat.

GoodSarmation made a measured post with reasonable qualifiers and you flipped it around for a very cheap shot.

Again, I'm aware of the irony here but I at least try to be reciprocational.

 

[Akka]

I used to post in longer form but I got extremely tired of people butchering my posts with quotes, keeping the fat and gristle while tossing the meat.

So you switched to do the same thing you hated ?

GoodSarmation made a measured post with reasonable qualifiers and you flipped it around for a very cheap shot.

From my point of view, I sided with what he said against the idiots who see the world through racist lens.

Again, I'm aware of the irony here but I at least try to be reciprocational.

So when you fire one-liners that ignore the main point at long and argumented posts in other threads, it's because you're reciprocational ?

 

[Senethro]

Oooooh, I winced even just at that. Chop chop chop. A reply to whatever contexts are made by the wrapping of the quote tags. Nah I try to reply to the overall intents of posts and not to crap up RD threads. And to rarely write a post that could be TL;DR'd because it'll happen anyway.

 

[Akka]

I dislike the slicing up of posts into mincemeat in order to ignore the main point and just nitpick at details. I don't do it.
What I do, though, is to separate the main themes/ideas when it fits. Which I just did.
And though answering to the overall intent is a good move, and one I try to do, it's actually important to take specific arguments into account and deal with them. It's just as possible to ignore the main point by answering globally, jumping above the difficult-to-answer questions or reasoning, than it is by dissecting a post, disassembling the parts so there is no whole left.

 

[Berzerker]

Maybe you're the one having problems following a discussion (considering most of your posts are just fly-by piques that rarely if ever actually engage in the arguments layed out, it might really be the case, after all).

So you switched to do the same thing you hated ?

So when you fire one-liners that ignore the main point at long and argumented posts in other threads, it's because you're reciprocational ?

he usually runs away after firing too

 

[Senethro]

What is there further to say? There has been an exchange. I've received some of his points and perhaps don't care or feel able to present mine better. Just like its possible to overstate, you can go on too long at length. Withdrawal gives room for something else.

 

[Akka]

True, but when withdrawal is your usual modus operanti after a provokation, it casts itself in a much less wise colour.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm not seeing the countries of Canada, Sweden, Germany, France, etc having cruel foreign policies.

Then you aren't paying enough attention. France regularly engages in murderous military interventions in its former African colonies; Germany has openly engaged in the pillaging of Southern Europe under the cover of the EU and EMU treaties; Canada is selling arms to countries like Saudi Arabia...

 

[Akka]

That's a pretty, well, "personal" interpretation of "cruel foreign policies" for sure. I wonder what kind of universal standard would need to be applied to reach such conclusion - emphasis on "universal", because it seems the main problem here is the (very) heavy use of double-standards so the desired conclusion can be reached through them.

 

[metalhead]

I think the point is that the norms of Western foreign policy are themselves cruel. Pointing out that the behavior is normative may be factually accurate, but that doesn't mean it isn't cruel.

I'm less inclined to apply that label to arms sales as I would be to actual military intervention or economic pillaging, but I can see why one might feel that way.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm less inclined to apply that label to arms sales as I would be to actual military intervention or economic pillaging, but I can see why one might feel that way.

I would too, in general, but this particular arms sale was to Saudi Arabia and no bones are being made that the weapons sold to the Saudis will be used in a military campaign that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of Yemeni civilians. I'm not sure in what universe making policy to line the pockets of arms manufacturers by facilitating the killing of children in Yemen is not 'cruel,' but whatever...

 

[Akka]

I think the point is that the norms of Western foreign policy are themselves cruel.

Compared to which benign foreign policies from which parts of the world ?
Because if all foreign policies in the same context have the same norms, then how can the Western ones be comparatively "cruel" ?

Pointing out that the behavior is normative may be factually accurate, but that doesn't mean it isn't cruel.

No it doesn't mean it isn't cruel.
What it DOES mean though, is an attempt to single out a specific group to put the blame on them as if they were different while everyone else do the same. It's just complete dishonesty, manipulation and double standards.