Funny (political, religious) pictures

GasBandit

Staff member
TIL, non-government individuals can't infringe your rights... aka it's only murder if a government employee does it. :p
You're even more rife with logical fallacies as usual. This one's a non sequitur.

So rich people buying up all the guns to drive up prices so that regular people can't afford them any more and then sit on them as an investment wouldn't be an issue for you...
Are you actually trying to argue that guns are a scarce resource in america that can be market cornered? :p

EDIT: what happened to the pic i posted in the previous post?
Hrm, looks like, according to the history, you edited that post twice, and in the second edit, the picture got removed?
 
You're even more rife with logical fallacies as usual. This one's a non sequitur.
Because, obviously, saying only X can do a thing doesn't logically imply Y and Z can't.


Are you actually trying to argue that guns are a scarce resource in america that can be market cornered? :p
Fun fact about hypotheticals, they don't need to be probable, just possible. Hell, not even that, since they're only meant to get a point across.

And are there really that many gun manufacturers out there that you couldn't buy them all?

Hrm, looks like, according to the history, you edited that post twice, and in the second edit, the picture got removed?
Well, once it was the merging, i think , and then i edited it to delete the merge msg because the 2nd post was empty...

But i tried it again, and the makeameme site doesn't seem to like being linked here... had to upload the img etc.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Because, obviously, saying only X can do a thing doesn't logically imply Y and Z can't.
Which is another non-sequitur, seeing as how that's not what happened.

Fun fact about hypotheticals, they don't need to be probable, just possible. Hell, not even that, since they're only meant to get a point across.
They need to be believable, though, if they're supposed to make any point other than the author of the assertion being divorced from reality.
 
Which is another non-sequitur, seeing as how that's not what happened.
How else was i supposed to interpret: "and not taxation or other government meddling. That constitutes "infringing." ?



They need to be believable, though, if they're supposed to make any point other than the author of the assertion being divorced from reality.

I think i just implied they don't.

Hell, you can actually disprove a premise by showing that applying proper logic to it leads to an impossibility.

"That would never happen in the US" is not an argument against a logically sound argument any more then "That would never happen in the US" is one against the existance of EU style healthcare.
 
For the record, some crimes are specific to the government. They just have different names when normal citizens do it. Censure, for example, is de facto government.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
They need to be believable, though, if they're supposed to make any point other than the author of the assertion being divorced from reality.
Is it really unbelievable, though? Gun sales are down, and banks are increasingly reluctant to be associated with gun manufacturers. How far out of the realm of possibility is it that gun companies will merge, go out of business, and otherwise decrease in number, with the remaining gun companies (and distributors) falling under a single private investor.

Do you think Bill Gates is rich enough to pull that off? He's a billionaire who wants better gun control. What if his solution was to buy a controlling interest in every company selling guns in the US? How much would gun sales have to decline for him to pull that off? How many banks would have to refuse to serve gun manufacturers before even Bill Gates seemed like the best option?
 
I'd say you'd need more engines, because 2 are clearly not working out. Especially when they're on the same wing.
 
Nah, see, that doesn't count, because they're talking about pre-nazi Germany, and she only knows about Nazi Germany... and we all know that learning about a thing precludes learning about what lead to that thing... /reddit
 
Then I looked up the "Reason as Racism" document he mentioned. While I don't agree with every detail of it, wtf is he sweepingly objecting to? He portrays it in the comics like it's Mein Kampf or something.
Heh, any article that claims:

"If I call you a racist, I probably will not be called one."

today is the product of either delusion or malice.

"Antifa/SWJ's/libs are the real racists!" has been a rallying cry for years now.
 
He basically played the "stop calling everyone racist!" card because people, rightfully, called out the racist generalizations of someone he supports. It's okay to call a spade a spade. I also love that he brought up Kennedy, Clinton, and Nixon for their crassness in private. One was assassinated , one was impeached, and the other forced to resign. Yes, great group of people to throw in Trump.
 
Like I said, the article wasn't AWESOME, but putting somebody who had a swastika tattoo as the "kind of person" to agree with it was pretty damned extreme, that's all I mean. It reinforced the point of the article he was putting down by saying that only an extreme racist could possibly agree with the main point of it. So he ended up parodying his own viewpoint IMO.
"Antifa/SWJ's/libs are the real racists!" has been a rallying cry for years now.
When a group says that jobs, university placements, social assistance, and a number of other things need to favor certain races over others, guess what: they're racist (and often sexist too).

Judging people ONLY on their actual behavior and NOT on what somebody who looks like them has done in the past? Oh no, that's a horrible thing to do, and makes you racist... somehow.
 
Like I said, the article wasn't AWESOME, but putting somebody who had a swastika tattoo as the "kind of person" to agree with it was pretty damned extreme, that's all I mean. It reinforced the point of the article he was putting down by saying that only an extreme racist could possibly agree with the main point of it. So he ended up parodying his own viewpoint IMO.
Dude, you don't really read many political cartoonists, do you?
 
When a group says that jobs, university placements, social assistance, and a number of other things need to favor certain races over others, guess what: they're racist (and often sexist too).

Judging people ONLY on their actual behaviour and NOT on what somebody who looks like them has done in the past? Oh no, that's a horrible thing to do, and makes you racist... somehow.
And there it is...

Yeah, just look at this clear example of discrimination, why are they guarding kids of one race, but not the other:



Also, this apparently needs reposting:




See, even if you're not racist, you're buying into the rhetoric that racists have used to try to prevent progress ever since people started to recognize that racism is bad.

If you really want to argue that affirmative action isn't working, then, i for one require you to provide an actual alternative, that doesn't rest on "there's no racism any more".
 
If you really want to argue that affirmative action isn't working, then, i for one require you to provide an actual alternative, that doesn't rest on "there's no racism any more".
Actually you need to prove your methods ARE working, rather than the opposite. Not to mention you can outright show harm based on what affirmative action is: it's saying your race is more important than your skills to thousands (millions?). THAT'S harmful right there.

As for other evidence of harms: http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/williams-diversity-and-inclusion-harm-part-two
 

Post automatically merged:

Actually you need to prove your methods ARE working, rather than the opposite. Not to mention you can outright show harm based on what affirmative action is: it's saying your race is more important than your skills to thousands (millions?). THAT'S harmful right there.

As for other evidence of harms: http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/williams-diversity-and-inclusion-harm-part-two
Congrats, you completely ignored what i said...

The point is that one needs to do something about the gender and race imbalance, not that anything being done about it is fine, and can never do more harm then good. Of course it can, because EVERYTHING can be done badly.

But instead of focusing on how to improve the historical disadvantages of certain genders and races in the US (worked for Russia and women in STEM, so claims that women "just aren't into it, so it's natural they're way under-represented" don't stand up to scrutiny), you CHOOSE to focus on the fact that it's done badly, and then argue (or just imply) it's better to do nothing about it (because doing something is racist - seriously, what next, helping the poor is class warfare?), even though we've seen that doesn't work, any more then ignoring racism and pretending it's over does.

Hell, i'll even give you that you don't need to propose alternatives, you just need to demand them, instead of simply dismissing any need to tackle the issues.
...

And you might want to think about why some articles are labelled opinion, especially since actual quotas have been deemed unconstitutional for decades in the US, so the whole "half PoC" thing wouldn't stand up to the slightest court challenge.
 
Last edited:
@Li3n you are making a HUGE assumption here with this next sentence:
But instead of focusing on how to improve the historical disadvantages of certain genders and races in the US (worked for Russia and women in STEM, so claims that women "just aren't into it, so it's natural they're way under-represented" don't stand up to scrutiny)
Please point out above where I said any of this about "natural" for groups to be underrepresented or whatever.

*crickets*

Now that being said, your next argument:
you CHOOSE to focus on the fact that it's done badly, and then argue (or just imply) it's better to do nothing about it (because doing something is racist - seriously, what next, helping the poor is class warfare?), even though we've seen that doesn't work, any more then ignoring racism and pretending it's over does.
Yes I'm against hurting people to help somebody else, ESPECIALLY with the force of government, or even acceptability. When you are judging if a job is right for somebody, "race" isn't in my toolbox. I DON'T CARE. And that's the POINT. Whatever historical imbalances exist, and whatever their reasons DO NOT MATTER. If you start judging people based on "their group" (race, gender, whatever) then you are putting somebody down because of something racist, sexist, etc that somebody else in their group did that may have perpetuated an imbalance. This is the same as acting "suspicious" of Muslims because of 9/11, or any other prejudice against a group because "some" of them did something... maybe. It makes NO SENSE. You are punishing somebody for something someone "similar" to them did, not judging them on their own merits.

IT'S WRONG!
And you might want to think about why some articles are labelled opinion, especially since actual quotas have been deemed unconstitutional for decades in the US, so the whole "half PoC" thing wouldn't stand up to the slightest court challenge.
Uh huh. Just about every other thing EXCEPT quotas still occurs though, and that is bad. Tracking if there are racist/sexist/whatever things happening is good, and detects people doing bad things. But using such measures for acceptance, and affirmative action in general, is bad, and judges people based on those attributes, which we as a society have decided is bad. Moving further there to penalize those of the "wrong" races (or whatever) is just wrong.
 
@Li3n you are making a HUGE assumption here with this next sentence:

Please point out above where I said any of this about "natural" for groups to be underrepresented or whatever.

*crickets*
You don't need to say something for it to be a natural conclusion to your previous statements.

Certain groups being under-represented is a fact, and you're vehemently denying that doing something about it is required.

And you clearly didn't even bother to read the article i linked, which, btw, had a lot to say about how attitudes early in life seem to work better then most of the stuff you where railing against.


Yes I'm against hurting people to help somebody else, ESPECIALLY with the force of government, or even acceptability. When you are judging if a job is right for somebody, "race" isn't in my toolbox. I DON'T CARE. And that's the POINT. Whatever historical imbalances exist, and whatever their reasons DO NOT MATTER. If you start judging people based on "their group" (race, gender, whatever) then you are putting somebody down because of something racist, sexist, etc that somebody else in their group did that may have perpetuated an imbalance. This is the same as acting "suspicious" of Muslims because of 9/11, or any other prejudice against a group because "some" of them did something... maybe. It makes NO SENSE. You are punishing somebody for something someone "similar" to them did, not judging them on their own merits.

IT'S WRONG!

Uh huh. Just about every other thing EXCEPT quotas still occurs though, and that is bad. Tracking if there are racist/sexist/whatever things happening is good, and detects people doing bad things. But using such measures for acceptance, and affirmative action in general, is bad, and judges people based on those attributes, which we as a society have decided is bad. Moving further there to penalize those of the "wrong" races (or whatever) is just wrong.

Oh, this crap again...

Yeah, sure, giving minorities stuff = less stuff for the majority.

Just like when slavery ended, that really screwed working whites, since all of a sudden they had to compete with a lot more people.

Or when they allowed women into the work force.

Guess what, where you start at is still the main factor for where you end up, and trying to rebalance that isn't "punishing other people"!

And now we're back again to the conclusion that it's ok for some groups to be under-represented, because changing that "penalizes" the people who would have gotten those jobs instead. But maybe you have some way that fixes the under-representation without "hurting" the ""wrong" races (or whatever)"... i seem to recall actually asking you for that multiple times now... "*crickets*"

AS i said before, i'd be a lot more inclined to believe you're actually arguing this for the principals of it if you bothered to give at least a little thought on how to fix the issues in some other ways instead of just letting the current system continue because the changed being made aren't the perfect.


because "some" of them did something... maybe.
Maybe racist and sexism happened? Really...
 
Affirmative Action is not wrong, because whether or not you have engaged in racist actions yourself, if you are a white American then you and your ancestors have profited and benefited unfairly from the past abuses of those who did engage in such exclusionary behavior whether you wanted to or not. This is why affirmative action treats racism as systemic problem instead of a personal problem; it doesn't matter if YOU are a racist, it only matters if there are enough of them in power (and historically, there always have been) for you to have benefited from their actions unjustly. That we have is not even in question; it'd been recorded public policy for almost the entire period in which black people were free that they were denied the same opportunities as white men and this helped create and perpetuate the systemic poverty issues that black (and other minority) Americans still face today. Giving them an edge against the known prevalent racial attitudes in this country, both historically and currently, is therefore just on the grounds that minority candidates were (and still are) disqualified from jobs on the basis of their ethnicity alone. The fact that some otherwise qualified white folks might have to look harder for employment is irrelevant; their whiteness and participation in white society confers know advantage to them in their job search.

This is not to claim that all white people have profited equally from the racist decisions of those in power, both currently and historically. They have not; the rich and powerful have profited much more. But merely being white provides known, measurable advantages at all walks of life and you have absolutely no say in that. Racism still benefits you even if you don't engage in it.

Here's a great piece on the systemic abuses of the government and how white society has benefited from racism, even if not all members engaged in it.

Now if you REALLY want to fix the issue of systemic racial exclusion in the jobs market, there ARE a few things you COULD do to make hiring practices a bit more fair without affirmative action.

- Remove applicant names from all resumes. All resumes will be submitted electronically and all applicants will be assigned and identified by number.
- Remove all mention of race, sex, ethnicity, age, orientation, etc.
- Only list information relevant to the job at hand, including skills, education, job experience, etc.
- Pick your choices based ONLY on this information. No interviews (they are statistically worthless).
- Hire the most qualified. You will quickly find out if they lied about anything, have other issues they didn't tell you, or are simply intolerable to work with.

This doesn't fix everything... there's nothing to prevent management from firing minority candidates at the last stage and simply doing the entire process over until they get white folks, but that is at least an identifiable behavior. It's also still going to favor white people from wealthy/well-off backgrounds but that has ALWAYS been in an issue at all walks of life. But it does help prevent racist hiring practices by denying them the information they would use to identify those they would discriminate against long enough that their behavior is noticeable.
 
Now if you REALLY want to fix the issue of systemic racial exclusion in the jobs market, there ARE a few things you COULD do to make hiring practices a bit more fair without affirmative action.

- Remove applicant names from all resumes. All resumes will be submitted electronically and all applicants will be assigned and identified by number.
- Remove all mention of race, sex, ethnicity, age, orientation, etc.
- Only list information relevant to the job at hand, including skills, education, job experience, etc.
- Pick your choices based ONLY on this information. No interviews (they are statistically worthless).
- Hire the most qualified. You will quickly find out if they lied about anything, have other issues they didn't tell you, or are simply intolerable to work with.
Heck, I'm a White male, and even *I* would support these changes.

--Patrick
 
I don't. How am I supposed to hire only the hottest girls for my department if I can't see their names or other info, or interview them?

So... basically I'm a living, breathing argument that supports Ash's point.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Affirmative Action is not wrong, because whether or not you have engaged in racist actions yourself, if you are a white American then you and your ancestors have profited and benefited unfairly from the past abuses of those who did engage in such exclusionary behavior whether you wanted to or not.
So, basically, all white people will be bearing the sins of (some of) their fathers into perpetuity?

Now if you REALLY want to fix the issue of systemic racial exclusion in the jobs market, there ARE a few things you COULD do to make hiring practices a bit more fair without affirmative action.

- Remove applicant names from all resumes. All resumes will be submitted electronically and all applicants will be assigned and identified by number.
- Remove all mention of race, sex, ethnicity, age, orientation, etc.
- Only list information relevant to the job at hand, including skills, education, job experience, etc.
- Pick your choices based ONLY on this information. No interviews (they are statistically worthless).
- Hire the most qualified. You will quickly find out if they lied about anything, have other issues they didn't tell you, or are simply intolerable to work with.

This doesn't fix everything... there's nothing to prevent management from firing minority candidates at the last stage and simply doing the entire process over until they get white folks, but that is at least an identifiable behavior. It's also still going to favor white people from wealthy/well-off backgrounds but that has ALWAYS been in an issue at all walks of life. But it does help prevent racist hiring practices by denying them the information they would use to identify those they would discriminate against long enough that their behavior is noticeable.
But, so I've heard the argument go, you can't hire STRICTLY on qualifications, because the systemic racism makes white people have the better opportunities for education and experience, right?
 
So, basically, all white people will be bearing the sins of (some of) their fathers into perpetuity?
Sure, because blacks and women will never be able to catch up once they have the same opportunities, and no one is racist any more (as implied by you saying it's the sins of their fathers, and not theirs).

And what's with this "some"bullshit... if you knew your neighbours where lynching people, and did nothing, you're not sinless.


But, so I've heard the argument go, you can't hire STRICTLY on qualifications, because the systemic racism makes white people have the better opportunities for education and experience, right?
And that's why, as per that article about Russian women in STEM, the best practice is to start changing things in early life.

But you also need to force the issue a bit, just like the commies did over here back in the day with women in the work force.
...

But you too have chosen to ignore that the actual goal is to integrate those minorities in those places, until there is no better opportunities based on race. And you can easily criticise the way they're trying to do that, without implying they should do nothing instead, which, for some reason, y'all seem to not be doing (hopefully because the propaganda is working, and not because you think there are fine people on both sides).

You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs! Perfect is the enemy of good! and all that.
 
So, basically, all white people will be bearing the sins of (some of) their fathers into perpetuity?
We're not even to that point. One of key issues in the article I linked is that white society is completely unwilling to even face the reality of the perks they get for being white and how many of them came at the expense of minorities or how we've simply stripped minorities of whatever gains they did achieve whenever it was inconvenient or unsavory for them to have them. That's the writer's whole argument in regards to reparations; until the entire size and scope of the injustices minorities have faced has been seriously addressed and agreed upon, it's pointless to talk about numbers or specific restitution to make things square. We're just going to be stuck in a cycle of "Enough's enough" and "Not even close" forever because there was never a serious attempt at fixing the issue begin with.

Also, perpetuity? What, did racism suddenly stop yesterday and no one told me?

But, so I've heard the argument go, you can't hire STRICTLY on qualifications, because the systemic racism makes white people have the better opportunities for education and experience, right?
Organizational Psychology can only fix the observable behaviors that occur in organizations, not the circumstances members of organizations encountered from before they tried to join. Or to put it more bluntly, I can't get them the skills they need to be hired for any position, but I can keep them from being shown the door on the basis of traits unrelated to the job at hand. Hence why I said "more fair" and not "fair"; I can't magically undo generations of racial injustice with a few tweaks to the hiring process, I can only lessen the effects of it.
 
New Study Confirms Depressing Truth About Names And Racial Bias

Minorities Who 'Whiten' Job Resumes Get More Interviews

I mean, Ash isn't making it up. There's a bunch more like those studies.

Here's one that found different results:

Hiring bias study: Resumes with black, white, Hispanic names treated the same

However, they gave white-sounding names all around as opposed to names closer associated with the respective ethnicities. Which still provides interesting data on what's happening out in America.
 
Top