<Comment deleted by user>
One day, a mod will see this, and then, that mod, will ban this thread.
@clousems said in #12:
> Well, that's cryptically ominous, innit?
>
> But one of us is apparently not as smart as one of us thinks. Not sure who goes in which blank.
> My thought process:
> A). Racism involves discrimination based on race.
> B). People are prone to overreacting to racism, and/or overusing allegations of racism
> C). India can be a race or a country. In this context, though, it's actually in reference to an individual's username.
> D). Since no mention of race was made outside of the reference to a name, there is no reason to think the post in question is racist.
> E). Since there was no reason to bring up racism, you are using racism allegations as a tool to prevent communication.
> F). The existence of people (such as yourself) doing the action described in part E) are the reason that electorates supporting anti-establishmentarian populists exist.
> G). Donald Trump is an example of an anti-establishmentarian populist.
> H). As a logical conclusion of F and G, you have contributed to the support of Donald Trump. Thus, you can be said to be a Trump supporter.
> I). While in office, Donald Trump instituted policies that involved implicit racial discrimination.
> J). By supporting Trump, and by extension his implicitly racist policies, you have supported racism. Which, logically, makes YOU a racist!
> ------------------------
> As you can see, we can all sit around in a circle calling each other racists and other such pejoratives (you blaggard!) with flimsy rationale until we all stop caring about what others think and descend into anarchy, or we can save our breath, and do something useful (for example, pottery in India).
Say what now? Why are we talking about racism and Trump???
> Well, that's cryptically ominous, innit?
>
> But one of us is apparently not as smart as one of us thinks. Not sure who goes in which blank.
> My thought process:
> A). Racism involves discrimination based on race.
> B). People are prone to overreacting to racism, and/or overusing allegations of racism
> C). India can be a race or a country. In this context, though, it's actually in reference to an individual's username.
> D). Since no mention of race was made outside of the reference to a name, there is no reason to think the post in question is racist.
> E). Since there was no reason to bring up racism, you are using racism allegations as a tool to prevent communication.
> F). The existence of people (such as yourself) doing the action described in part E) are the reason that electorates supporting anti-establishmentarian populists exist.
> G). Donald Trump is an example of an anti-establishmentarian populist.
> H). As a logical conclusion of F and G, you have contributed to the support of Donald Trump. Thus, you can be said to be a Trump supporter.
> I). While in office, Donald Trump instituted policies that involved implicit racial discrimination.
> J). By supporting Trump, and by extension his implicitly racist policies, you have supported racism. Which, logically, makes YOU a racist!
> ------------------------
> As you can see, we can all sit around in a circle calling each other racists and other such pejoratives (you blaggard!) with flimsy rationale until we all stop caring about what others think and descend into anarchy, or we can save our breath, and do something useful (for example, pottery in India).
Say what now? Why are we talking about racism and Trump???
<Comment deleted by user>
@Chess-King30 said in #17:
> @IndianPotter100 IS banned for violating lichess terms.you cant make forum games on the public forum.altho you can do it in teams.
wdym? he's not banned
> @IndianPotter100 IS banned for violating lichess terms.you cant make forum games on the public forum.altho you can do it in teams.
wdym? he's not banned
@lucky_Nan said in #23:
> Say what now? Why are we talking about racism and Trump???
Whenever I get asked to explain an explanation of an explanation (especially when the explanation is sequentially listed with clear, alphabetically-ordered signposts), I'm reminded of the works of the great American aphorist, S.L. Jackson:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbvYeLxMKN8
clousems can be a harsh teacher, but if you learn one thing from this interaction, I hope that it is the following lesson:
Reviving dead threads to ping users with requests to tautologically explain explanations is just a waste of everyone's time, especially when the explanation is itself tangential to the thread.
My advice: never post unless you have something in particular to add or learn.
> Say what now? Why are we talking about racism and Trump???
Whenever I get asked to explain an explanation of an explanation (especially when the explanation is sequentially listed with clear, alphabetically-ordered signposts), I'm reminded of the works of the great American aphorist, S.L. Jackson:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbvYeLxMKN8
clousems can be a harsh teacher, but if you learn one thing from this interaction, I hope that it is the following lesson:
Reviving dead threads to ping users with requests to tautologically explain explanations is just a waste of everyone's time, especially when the explanation is itself tangential to the thread.
My advice: never post unless you have something in particular to add or learn.
<Comment deleted by user>
@clousems said in #26:
> Whenever I get asked to explain an explanation of an explanation (especially when the explanation is sequentially listed with clear, alphabetically-ordered signposts), I'm reminded of the works of the great American aphorist, S.L. Jackson:
>
>
>
> clousems can be a harsh teacher, but if you learn one thing from this interaction, I hope that it is the following lesson:
> Reviving dead threads to ping users with requests to tautologically explain explanations is just a waste of everyone's time, especially when the explanation is itself tangential to the thread.
> My advice: never post unless you have something in particular to add or learn.
1. You didn't answer my question.
2. My advice: Think before you judge someone. Calm down. I was just asking, y'know.
3. Your thread was completely of topic.
4. Look at your problems before you fix somebody else's.
5. Your so over-reactive!
Learn this, can't you?
> Whenever I get asked to explain an explanation of an explanation (especially when the explanation is sequentially listed with clear, alphabetically-ordered signposts), I'm reminded of the works of the great American aphorist, S.L. Jackson:
>
>
>
> clousems can be a harsh teacher, but if you learn one thing from this interaction, I hope that it is the following lesson:
> Reviving dead threads to ping users with requests to tautologically explain explanations is just a waste of everyone's time, especially when the explanation is itself tangential to the thread.
> My advice: never post unless you have something in particular to add or learn.
1. You didn't answer my question.
2. My advice: Think before you judge someone. Calm down. I was just asking, y'know.
3. Your thread was completely of topic.
4. Look at your problems before you fix somebody else's.
5. Your so over-reactive!
Learn this, can't you?
I'm guessing you're a kid who is new to the forums. I actually toned down my response because of this, which is uncharacteristic for me. This is "kid-glove clousems".
But there are some things you should know--
First: A thread is a string of posts. I didn't make this thread. My POST was in reference to another post, which is why I used the quote feature.
Second: I was giving advice that I felt would be useful-- there are those on this site even grouchier than I am. I was not being malicious. Feel free to ignore it, but you'll likely get flamed to high heaven if you do this to the wrong person (possibly including me, on a bad day).
To your points:
I most certainly answered your question, and did so before you asked it-- hence my incredulity at your inability to comprehend English. I don't know what else you want me to say. I suppose I could ask my neurologists to explain to me how brain impulses work, and thus how a thought process develops, but that seems like a waste of time.
As for your advice, I'll keep it in mind, but I don't know how that really applies here.
But there are some things you should know--
First: A thread is a string of posts. I didn't make this thread. My POST was in reference to another post, which is why I used the quote feature.
Second: I was giving advice that I felt would be useful-- there are those on this site even grouchier than I am. I was not being malicious. Feel free to ignore it, but you'll likely get flamed to high heaven if you do this to the wrong person (possibly including me, on a bad day).
To your points:
I most certainly answered your question, and did so before you asked it-- hence my incredulity at your inability to comprehend English. I don't know what else you want me to say. I suppose I could ask my neurologists to explain to me how brain impulses work, and thus how a thought process develops, but that seems like a waste of time.
As for your advice, I'll keep it in mind, but I don't know how that really applies here.
You should never pick a fight with clousems!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.