people don't "fall into categories".

I'm not talking about people, but about different types of oppression. We may hate all of them evenly, but they're not the same. When you examine their origins and underlying causes, you'll find that they're different. And that's why there are people who suffer from racism but at the same time participate in misogyny or homophobia (both are major problems in the black community in the US). That's because suffering from one type of oppression doesn't necessarily mean you understand them all.

That was why we had a problem with what you were saying in the other topic. Nobody ever said your opinion "doesn't matter" because you're a straight, white man. What we said is you can't truly expect yourself to be innately familiar with a concept such as misogyny unless you've experienced it firsthand and have the intrinsic realization that it's not something that's ever gonna go away. And that's something that Vellfire and Faust were able to attest to from their own personal experience.

I never claimed to be an authority on shit. I don't care enough. I don't study it but if I don't agree with someone who thinks they are an authority I'm going to say when I think they're full of shit and being oppressive with their sensitivity.

You shouldn't be so dismissive of what other people have to say. That's precisely why we've continuously tried to explain what I just mentioned: you can't consider yourself to be as or more knowledgeable on what it feels like to be oppressed in the way that women or gay people are, just because you've suffered from some other kind of trouble or had a rough childhood or anything like that. Those things are all terrible, but they're also all different.

As for us or me or anyone else being "oppressive", I think you should refer to mkkmypet's post which sums it up very well. Nobody's forcing you to do anything. There's nothing wrong with someone telling you that they don't like what you're saying or what kind of words you use. It doesn't have to be a one-on-one conversation for a black person to tell you he doesn't want you using the word "nigger" in casual conversation or ironically or as a joke. Same for other words. That's not false sensitivity, that's a genuine concern. People aren't going to pick this fight with you out of a false concern.

It's up to you to make the decision whether to act on it. If you don't, you're ignoring people's concerns and risk making those people angry or disappointed. Nobody's censoring you. But if you decide not to put in that minuscule effort that people ask of you, you can't expect them to like you.

Okay I didn't see his last post when I was writing that reply.

I don't care if I look like an asshole because there is absolutely no other way to get the point accross, you're unwilling to pay attention or to listen because I'm unapologetic and the only one willing to openly say shit about it. fuck.this.place.

Okay! Just leave already. You're insufferable, and you really just can't stand being disagreed with. This has nothing to do with "boldly telling the truth" or "saying it how it is", you just can't stand it when someone tells you you're wrong and is willing to go through great lengths to tell you why you're wrong. And you can't stand it when someone asks you to please not make crude, misogynistic jokes. That's apparently CENSORSHIP. If you can't muster up a basic level of decency, why are you even on a forum?

ps:

Also yes, I do make black jokes but I only do it to black people and in a way that I am endearing myself to them. I do the same thing with latinos sometimes but in a friendly jousting manner. It removes alot of tension and makes open discussion much more easier and unoffensive.

lmao. No here's what happens: they don't like your racist jokes but they'd rather not speak up about them because white people have been known to call that "oppression".

I mean, who the hell even cares that the topic of feminism has been discussed before? That the topics of Ayn Rand and Ron Paul have been discussed before? Is it "intellectual regurgitation" because those topics have come up before with other people? You're just grasping at straws now.

ps: it would be great if you could let me know how many more angry posts ending in "I'm really leaving now" you're planning on making.

It's ironic that you sound angrier and more oppressive/censoring than anyone you're accusing of doing the same. Everyone else seems pretty calm. Oh and for the record Dada actually claimed I was being misogynist/ignorant a few weeks ago so no one is sharing the same worldview and blindly following each other here. 

Did I? I honestly don't remember calling you that. I do think I said something to you once at the end of that topic about Inri because you said Vellfire shouldn't have left because of him and should have a thicker skin, but iirc you later changed your mind about that after reading more from the topic.

um I saw some documentary on pbs about like arguing for capitalism and it was a swedish guy and he used Hong Kong as an example of a place with like no regulations pure capitalism and there are probably huge holes in his argument but I was wondering if anyone saw it so they could tear into it

(((late reply))) I have no idea about Hong Kong. You can't really know unless you do a good amount of research into the country's history. I did do some searching and found an article by Chomsky that states the following:

"Needless to say, these economic successes, like those of Singapore and Hong Kong, are no tribute either to democracy or the wonders of the market; rather, to harsh labor conditions, efficient quasi-fascist political systems, and, much as in Japan, high levels of protectionism and planning by financial-industrial conglomerates in a state-coordinated economy."

This is sort of interesting so maybe I'll check out the books he mentions in the footnotes regarding this point. But in general, rich societies develop because they take to economic protectionism, which causes a country's products to be favored to such a degree that internal development becomes more viable. If you have completely free movement of goods, what you get is investment abroad and the import of cheap foreign goods, which hurts domestic development. One of the most classic books about economy is The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, and he outlines the exact same problem and was afraid that a completely unregulated flow of capital would be bad for England. (He ended up concluding that capital should still move freely, and stated that investors would ultimately end up doing the right thing by investing in their native country. That's the so-called "invisible hand of the market".)

In general when these people make arguments for unregulated capitalism, they often mean unregulated capitalism in countries that we can exploit. So China, Bangladesh, lots of places in Africa, et cetera. Because "we developed because of unregulated capitalism" (not true in the least), therefore they will start developing too, as long as we're allowed to horribly exploit them.

idk depends on the crowd and the comfort levels between people really.

i've got friends of all shades/hues, all over the sexuality gradient, and a couple trans/genderbender-ppl, and sometimes we pitch shit at each other low-blows and all, what matters is context. I wouldn't really put it like Farren and say "I make black jokes" but sometimes friends and I will say awful shit to each other and laugh about it. Privilege politics and friendships don't really mix well because you can't let your guard down with that shit in my experiences.

Yeah that's true, when you're with close friends it depends on whether they appreciate it. I don't particularly get doing that to "remove tension" though (to "make open discussion easier and unoffensive"?) That sounds kind of like a hipster who introduces his black friend by way of a racist slur, which is hilarious because he's totally not a racist, right? If you make a joke like that and then laugh about it yourself as a way of asserting that you're not a racist to people who don't know you, that's just wrong.