Sidewalker

Ok troll. 

🖕🏿troll 🖕🏿

The first half scared me, ngl.

I thought the anger was directed at me.

White people (or any racial group outside the term’s origin) will sometimes begin using a term that originated in a community of color often as a term of pride, endearment, or self-empowerment years or decades later while either willfully or inadvertently distorting the original meaning of the term.

Are you trying to start a campaign to bring back the word Negro as a perfectly acceptable term for blacks?

I think the term “woke” has become pretty meaningless and is just another of those words with negative connotations that are used to dismiss opinions we may disagree with without having to engage anyone in debate.

How does one who is rational, logical, intelligent and exercises common sense, engage in a legit debate with someone proselytizing wokeness? They do not want to hear truth. They do not want to acknowledge fact-based truths. They do not want to accept evidence that contradicts their wokeness. They're basically stubborn and unmovable in their state of mind. 

"Woke is problematic for two primary reasons. First, it’s an offensive cultural appropriation. As is disturbingly often the case, White people (or any racial group outside the term’s origin) will sometimes begin using a term that originated in a community of color often as a term of pride, endearment, or self-empowerment years or decades later while either willfully or inadvertently distorting the original meaning of the term.

Second, the term’s use often prevents the deep, honest, sometimes uncomfortable conversation that arguably is our only pathway to real reconciliation. Let’s face it – engaging in sensitive, nuanced conversations around race is challenging enough without the irresponsible insertion of the term “woke” providing an ideological off ramp that shuts down any real listening, learning or self-reflection on issues that really require all three for authentic progress."

Exhibit A Bill Maher: Why White People Should Stop Using The Term ‘Woke’…Immediately (forbes.com)

“Wokeness is a problem and everyone knows it. It’s hard to talk to anybody today – and I talk to lots of people in the Democratic Party – who doesn’t say this. But they don’t want to say it out loud,” Carville, who made his name helping to elect Bill Clinton president, said in an interview with Vox this spring. Asked why his party won’t admit the wokeness problem, Carville responded bluntly: “Because they’ll get clobbered or canceled.”

Why 'wokeness' is the biggest threat to Democrats in the 2022 election | CNN Politics

"Wokeness also implies that those not in the club are asleep, deluded or wrong. This instant judgement forms a dividing line, forcing the other side to become defensive and further entrenching the debate. The moral superiority platform is hardly a way to bring sceptics on board, especially when wealthy and privileged campaigners who have co-opted wokeness do not even follow their own standards..."

Why ‘woke’ became toxic | LGBTQ | Al Jazeera

Wokeness replaces fact with fiction. "My truth" for [the] truth. It's divisive. It's problematic. It's destructive on multiple levels.

Wokeness is all about social justice. It's about recognizing and addressing issues of inequality, discrimination, and oppression in our society. And on the surface, that may seem like a laudable goal, right? After all, who could argue against justice and fairness for all?

But as with so many things in life, the devil is in the details. And when it comes to wokeness, those details are deeply concerning. One of the main problems with wokeness is that it is often based on a highly distorted/narrow view of reality. Woke individuals tend to see the world in terms of power dynamics, with certain groups (such as racial minorities, women, and members of the LGBTQ+ community) being viewed as victims, and other groups (such as white men) being viewed as oppressors.

This worldview is not only simplistic and reductive, but it also leads to a lot of division. Instead of focusing on what unites us as human beings, wokeness encourages us to see each other primarily as members of different identity groups, each longing for power and influence.

Another problem with wokeness is that it is often accompanied by a kind of moral absolutism. Woke individuals tend to believe that their views are not only correct, but that they are the only views that are morally acceptable. This leads to a chilling effect on free speech and open discourse, as anyone who dares to voice a dissenting opinion is immediately branded a bigot or a hater. There is the matter of wokeness' practical effects. Far from promoting true social justice, wokeness often leads to the opposite. By promoting a culture of victimhood and resentment, wokeness discourages people from taking responsibility for their own lives and encourages them to blame others for their problems.

Wokeness may have started out with good intentions, but it has turned into a dangerous and destructive force in our society. We need to reject its narrow-minded and absolutist worldview, and instead focus on what unites us as human beings. Only by doing so can we hope to build a truly just and equitable society.

This site always reaffirms and validates my conclusion that weirdos and idiots tend to be right wing.

necessary for those who desire it

Do you have a problem with surgically fusing the legs of 5 year olds together because they necessarily desire to be a mermaid?

I don't think I can allow Biden to eat crackers in my bed anymore.

Mutilating children is a time honored Democrat tradition.

It is clear that only humans have developed a religious perspective on this planet. 

Other animal and life forms simply are not evolved enough to be able to consider let alone relate to a religious being or religion. 

It is ironic therefore that there are some, nominally called atheists that reject this evolution, preferring to live wild like animals and a yesteryear. 

Consider for instance - the curiosities that the so called elitists consider culture: living in the wild, eating vegetable, eating rare meat, eating raw meat, living like savages, living free spirited, without control or rules or social norms.  Each of these is a desire, so it seems to revert back to animalism. to a time before they were enlightened, spiritually awakened, evolved.  eat whatever, copulate with whatever, crap wherever, and the most obvious form of animal thinking, dispense with logical thinking. 

Atheism is therefore obviously a non-progressive form of thinking. It's not progressive, it's not conservative, it is simply a revert back to the most primitive means of living. 

You told us you do not believe in evolution, and now you are speaking about how religion has evolved in humans and not in animals, and claiming  therefore Atheists are not as evolved as Theists.  So you don't believe in evolution unless it's useful to make a point?

It is funny that you think that what I say on a different topic which is completely isolated and distinct from this topic has anything to do with this topic.  

What sort of ad hominin argument is that?

 I never said I don't believe in evolution absolutely. For the record, I do believe in what some people call "microevolution".  In any event, my argument is straightforward.  Humans are the most evolved creatures on our planet. Humanity is also the only one that practices religion. Hence, it is ipso facto a reasonable conclusion to draw.  

To disagree with this - prove a more primitive animal than humanity has religion.

You guys sure do misuse the idea of burden of proof, it is not valid to make an argument and wrap up with if you don't agree the burden of proof is on you, that's just not how logical arguments work.  It's also not valid to specify the manner in which one is allowed to disagree.

Hmmm. This is an interesting diversionary tactic that I see here on this site more and more.  Please explain how the burden of proof ought to sit with me?  

I made an assertion. Therefore I need to provide an argument to support that assertion. This I have done. More than that I have provided anyone who opposes me as least one avenue to falsify my assertion.  Hence, arguments commence with an assertion. An argument is provided by that proponent.  Then the discussion moves to the other side to refute and falsify if they are able. That is logically how discussions and arguments work.  What however it looks like you are doing is this.  You want me to make an assertion. Then you want me to provide a reason. Then you want to me provide another reason and then another reason. All the time while you sit back on your seat and simply pretend that there is no burden for you to respond.  Now the fact is - you don't have to respond. But all that demonstrates is that either you don't care enough to respond, which incidentally, by your speedy response refutes, or that you don't know how to respond.  I think the latter explains it. As for valid means of disagreeing. You can disagree in any fashion that you want. My suggestion was simply to help the plebs such as yourself. 

I can make a strong argument that "other animals and life forms" demonstrate rudimentary forms of religious behavior, and I think it  can be seen as evidence thatthe spiritual sense has evolved over time and the process involves rudimentary forms of religious behavior in other species  in varying degrees.  But I suspect that wouled just be a waste of time.

Excellent, I look forward to your strong arguments.  

Where did you see atheists that are living like wild animals, without control, rules or social norms? Who are they? I don't know any atheists who could be described in that way. Tell me where I can find them or read about them.

Yes, I see them at parties, nightclubs, people getting themselves intoxicated on alcohol, drugs, sex, you name it. Of course, you might be tempted to say atheists don't drink or take drugs, or have sex. 

I also notice them at restaurants, eating sushi, rare meat, vegan food, etc.  It's quote common really.  Or do you think atheists don't go to restaurants? The rarer the meat, the more cultured you are.  The more expensive the wine, and never ever drink beer. 

So if you want to see them, come to Melbourne, you will see them on almost any city street during lunchtime, or in the evening at all the plush cafes'.

It is clear that only humans have developed a religious perspective on this planet. 

Other animal and life forms simply are not evolved enough to be able to consider let alone relate to a religious being or religion. 

It is ironic therefore that there are some, nominally called atheists that reject this evolution, preferring to live wild like animals and a yesteryear. 

Consider for instance - the curiosities that the so called elitists consider culture: living in the wild, eating vegetable, eating rare meat, eating raw meat, living like savages, living free spirited, without control or rules or social norms.  Each of these is a desire, so it seems to revert back to animalism. to a time before they were enlightened, spiritually awakened, evolved.  eat whatever, copulate with whatever, crap wherever, and the most obvious form of animal thinking, dispense with logical thinking. 

Atheism is therefore obviously a non-progressive form of thinking. It's not progressive, it's not conservative, it is simply a revert back to the most primitive means of living. 

To disagree with this - prove a more primitive animal than humanity has religion.

Simply put, when nations base themselves on diversity, they open the doors for "tribal" like groups of people with different beliefs, races, and ethnicities to separate and not work together, therefore creating a society where no one gets along. 

Kid, you are a moron.

Couldn’t prove his factually accurate statement wrong, so you throw an ad hominem at him. 🙄

What he said is factually accurate. We’ve been witnessing for more than a decade; and it’s precisely why blacks (and other minorities) self-segregate from anyone and everyone outside of their racial group. 

The issue with this is that "freedom" is just an abstract principle. It can't suddenly unite different peoples who have real, concrete differences.

What do you do in your ever day life to "celebrate diversity"?

Or do you just yell at politicians, and people online to do it, while you sit around living your normal life?

Youins remember when you was learning us about Christianity Bubba?

Well, turns out it ain't just for braggin, I hear tell it also is about how to treat others and what not, check it out.

Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Luke 10:27, James 2:8

And theys more Bubba, ya'll should read the Bible and see.

What do you do in your ever day life to "celebrate diversity"?

Or do you just yell at politicians, and people online to do it, while you sit around living your normal life?

Maybe learn how to intellectually argue, then I'll pay attention to your arguments. 

If your arguments are only insults, then I'm not going to waste my intellect on someone who isn't going to listen.

More specifically a Green Witch.  For any pagans out there, do you have any advice for him?

Lol, you seem angry again.

OK, so you accept diversity, as long as them inferiors stay in their place and are not included or involved in white society,got it Bubba. 

When did I ever say that or imply that?

So the problem is that diversity causesdivisiveness, there would be no problems if it were a pure Aryan nation? Imean, if darkies didn’t exist, we wouldn’t need to hate them would we, soracism is their fault, got it Billy Bob.

You're really going to take half of what I said, and make it sound like the whole. thing?

In my last post I said that basing a nation off of diversity is the problem, not diversity itself. 

LOL, so their agenda is to pollute the purityof the two Aryan genders.   You reallyneed to stop obsessing about other people’s genitals,  even if that’s what it takes for you to “feelcomplete, it’s beyond creepy.

Not Aryen genders. Two genders that have existed in almost every single nation in human history. I'm not obsessing over the genitals; I am obsessing over the identification part of the problem. I don't need see your penis to know that you're a man, and I don't need to see your vagina to know you're a woman.

No, I don’t think so because I’m not aracist, I don’t think these uppity blacks should stay in their place, and I don’tthink that black history oppresses racists. 

These inferior people want tobe included and that would pollute the purity of the Aryan nation, got it Green Teeth.. 

Again, I never said anyone is inferior or anyone should stay in their place. It's quite the opposite in fact. 

Black history is not bad,

but what is the reason you need to call it black history?

Why not call it human history? Calling it black history just suggests that you are dividing what kind of history we can have by race.

It's historic segregation. Pretty dang racist if I say so myself. 

I see, so black history isn’timportant, if they aren’t included or involved the Aryan nation remains pure, andthere would be no reason to teach unimportant black history, we should justteach important Aryan history.

The Aryan nation has nothing to do with this conversation buddy. 

Oh please, black history month isn’twhy you are a bad white man, you are a bad white man because you are a racist,and because you think you can justify it with inane doubletalk, you are a stupidracist. 

Are you reading what you type before you post?

You just called me a bad white man, with no justification.

a racist with no justification.

and a stupid racist with no justification. 

If these are your best arguments, then I don't want to continue this (supposed to be) intellectual discussion with you. 

Oh please, black history month isn’twhy you are a bad white man, you are a bad white man because you are a racist,and because you think you can justify it with inane doubletalk, you are a stupid racist.   It’s not just diversity that makes youa racist bad person, most white people think you are a stupid hatemongering white supremacist too.   Yeah, we all know your orange Messiah saidthere are good people on both sides, but he is also a racist, so thatdoesn’t count. 

So, not a response to my argument, just more non-sensical insults. 

Got it. 

Finally,I see what you are getting at, you want to be included in the LGBTQ community, andyou resent them for not including you.  If you come out of the closet, I'm sure they will include you.

Nope. Never have, and never will. 

This is what I was talking about when Isaid the more you try to justify your bigotry, the more you reveal just howstupid you are.  This idea that bypreaching inclusion they are excluding homophobic white supremacists, is thedifference between a homophobic white supremacist and a stupid homophobicwhite supremacist.  This stupidity mayfly at your Klan meetings, but outside of the white trash community, it justsounds stupid.  Go back and tell yourhandlers that even them traitorous whites ain’t buying it.

So, are you actually going to intellectually argue with me or are you just going to keep spewing nonsense?

definition of the word diversity explains what you mean by basing a nation on diversity.  Is it that you don't know what the phrase you typed means?  Are you just saying what you have been told to say, without even knowing what it 

Ok, read my lips/words.

Based in Diversity, means based in the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.

"Diversity is a good thing. But when you base a nation or society on diversity" is supposed to mean something,  if you don't know what it means try telling me whata nation based on diversity does differently than a nation that is not based on diversity does.   

A nation based on diversity divides the people into subcategories of people, tribe like. 

It causes tensions and wars to build up. 

LOL, so the people that told you what to say didn't tell you what the LGBTQ agenda was either?  I know what an agenda is, using your own definition tell us what you mean, what are the "underlying intentions or motives" of the LGBTQ community?

The motives of the LGBTQ+ community is to push the insane idea that there are more than two genders, and that you can do whatever you feel like you need to do to yourself, in order to "feel complete." 

LOL, and how does black history month cause division?  If black history month causes division because it upsets you, then black history isn't the problem, you are the problem.

Black history month doesn't offend me, but the idea that we should be celebrating one race, and only the good things about that particular race, is kind of demining to other races, don't you think?

I mean, what would you say, if there was no black history month, but instead a white history month. Wouldn't that be just a little racist?

How about no "specific race" history months. How about we just teach important history. 

How?

Well, it enforces the idea, that I am a bad white man, and that black people are more important than white people, because we are supposed to celebrate black lives and history. Oh, but if we even suggest celebrating white lives and history, we are called racists and bigots. 

They preach inclusion, which would be OK, but you don't agree with inclusion for the LBGTQ community, and they have the nerve to think you aren't a good person"   Again, the LGBTQ community is not the problem, you are the problem.

If the LGBTQ+ community actually preached inclusion for all then yes, I wouldn't have a problem with it. 

But the fact that they preach inclusion yet try to prosecute any who oppose their ideas and beliefs shows that they don't really care about inclusion, and instead care about pushing their agendas.

The problem is the LGBTQ community does not appreciate your intolerance and desire to exclude them from society, wow, that is one of the most twisted arguments ever, go back and ask your handlers if you got that right.

You phrase that, to make it seem like I am just going after them, when they have done nothing wrong. 

You are wrong. 

They have done wrong, in PREACHING INCLUSION yet don't include anyone who opposes their ideals. 

I see, so they preach inclusion and tolerance, and since you are opposed to thier inclusion and intolerant of them, they are against your freedom.  

......dude. You just ignored the base of what I am saying.

The LGBTQ+ community do indeed preach inclusion and tolerance, but they do not put it into actions, and instead to the opposite of that, by shunning and shaming anyone who opposes their ideas which have nothing to do with inclusion.

No, black history month is there to make white people feel bad about something they didn't do, and give entitled black people more to be feel entitled about.

Whatdoes “base themselves on diversity” mean?  Diversity is simply the reality of the situation; we are a diversecountry.  Are you talking abouttolerance?   We shouldn’t base ourselves on tolerance?Please clarify.

Base in diversity, means what it says.

Diversity: the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.

Now I'm not saying diversity is bad. Diversity is a good thing. But when you base a nation or society on diversity, it leads to seperation from the differences in certain people, because people tend to group together based on something they all have in common. That is how communities and nations form. When you have a certain group of people who believe one thing, and another group of people who believe another thing, and those people don't want to share a common belief, then history has shown that that can lead to big conflicts. 

Youkeep referring to this LBGTQ agenda, what exactly is the LGBTQ agenda?   

Ok now your just asking stupid questions. 

Ok so what you do in English grammar is you put two words together to form a sentence.

First find out what the LGBTQ+ community is.

Then use the definition of agenda.

Agenda: the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group

Then you have the phrase: LGBTQ+ agenda. 

Thispost is all over the place, it sounds like you are saying that instead of allowingthings like Black History Month or the LGBTQ “agenda” we should have freedominstead”?  Isn’t that self-contradicting?

People have the right to make a black history month sure. But what I am proposing is that doing those things is not a good idea, because it causes division.  

Do youthink Black History Month enforces ideas on you? 

Oh, most definitely. 

OK, andwhen you refer to the LGBTQ agenda, aren’t you defining people by what theybelieve in?

What I mean by define people, is push yourself and them into somewhat of an extremist group just soley because you don't agree with them. Now when it comes to the LGBTQ+ community, they preach inclusion, which would be ok, if they actually did that. Instead, they say if you don't agree with them, then you are a bad person

So, if a group of people are going to define me by what I believe in, then I am not going to respect that group of people. So certain groups of people need to be defined, because they preach the opposite of freedom.

So, we should not define people by what they believe in, unless what they believe in involves defining people by what they believe in.

 no matter how diverse those people are.

Then why celebrate something that detracts from it?

Celebrating diversity means really that some classes of people are more diverse than others. This is as far from an egalitarian society as you can get.

Simply put, when nations base themselves on diversity, they open the doors for "tribal" like groups of people with different beliefs, races, and ethnicities to separate and not work together, therefore creating a society where no one gets along. 

America has tried this approach in the presenting holidays like black history month and, Latino heritage month. America has also done this in pushing the LGBTQ+ agenda, and dividing the political parties into two extreme sides, and has in doing so, divided different groups of people so far apart, that we cannot agree on one single thing anymore soley based on who you are, or what you believe in. 

Nations, and societies have to have at least one thing that unites us all and causes us to come together as one nation.

Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't have different believes and ideas to ourselves and communities, but what I am saying is that the whole point of America is that we can have differencing opinions about things, yet still get along. Division is not something we should be promoting, and instead we should be uniting as one nation, under the basic believe and right that we all hold dear. Freedom.

We should not be enforcing ideas to each other, rather living along with one another despite our differences. 

NO one should be defined by what they believe in, what they look like, or what they hold dear.

As Americans we should all hold one definition of ourselves. 

We are all Americans, and that is the only definition that we hold. 

I don't think you should be able to sue your parents for giving birth to you...I do however, think everyone else should be able to sue your parents for giving birth to you.

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8717-am-i-allowed-to-sue-my-parents-for-giving-birth-to-me?page=1&post_number=7

Sidewalker is not encouraging suicide. Lmao.

Also, the response is appropriate to the title of the thread. You're so sensitive and hypocritical. 

How are you so bold when you implied you would be satisfied with someone here committing suicide, RM? Explain your hypocrisy. Didn't you say the following, 

I hate you so as to register in my brain to not ever invest myself into you emotionally, I literally would smile if a Lannan thread got made about you.

Will you go back to DDO? (debateart.com)

Just get a restraining order on him

What I'm "meaning" is.

What would be the point of saying that the Earth is spherical, if it was actually flat.

It's would be a pointless conspiracy theory for the sake of it.

The same as saying that the Earth is flat when it is actually spherical.

Rat-man's comeback to me calling him by his new nickname was to address me as "wannabe BatMan." He also just did the same to you. 

Be careful how you wield your words when trying to paint me the villain, batman.

Like what does that even mean??? Lmao.

Alright, this is going too far.

1) This is about the specific post in question, which is the post that was described as "making me feel bad and indirectly encouraging my suicide".

Even if it was made, I didnt care about it enough to even remember it being posted.

2) There is no point in doing any debate about it, let alone making the person who loses to leave the site.

3) If the post was made and moderators dont want to punish it, it is their choice. I prefer if they dont punish it if it was made.

4) I understand that posts encouraging suicide are a sensitive issue, because there are people who would be greatly hurt if someone encouraged them to commit suicide. There are people who are close to committing suicide and encouraging them to do that would make them do that, as opposed to not encouraging which would make them not do it.

5) I am not a sensitive person. Nothing anyone says can actually make me suicidal. If the post in question was made, then the warning would be more suitable to discourage same message being sent to other users without punishing anyone

Good luck with that. They are very neglectful and I am telling the truth.

There is a reason you admitted you knew the post.