Racists on Atlas?

[Kingpoleon]

There are a great many. Recall Non-Swing Voter, ardent supporter of tax cuts. All the backers of the Iraq War. That guy who defended Thomas Ricketts. That's just the really bad ones.

+ Illinois Republicans

Thank God for Illinois Republicans!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

What totally and actually happened was that the Parties switched in 1964 when the racist Democrats became the racist Republicans.

Indeed. People like Norris Cotton, good Northerners who supported very staunchly the voting rights of blacks, yet opposed anti-discrimination legislation, became racists who only voted for the VRA of 1965 because they hoped to weaken it and destroy it.

[SATW]

There are a great many. Recall Non-Swing Voter, ardent supporter of tax cuts. All the backers of the Iraq War. That guy who defended Thomas Ricketts. That's just the really bad ones.

+ Illinois Republicans

Thank God for Illinois Republicans!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

^ this. this so much.

But, of course, there are racists/antisemites/homophobes etc... on atlas. As unfortunate and disturbing as it is.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

define "racist ideologies"

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

There are definitely some racists on this forum.

[Bojack Horseman]

Well most Trump supporters are racists, so...

[Xing]

If Place A exists, Place A contains racists.

Atlas exists.

Therefore Atlas contains racists.

[Mr. Morden]

If Place A exists, Place A contains racists.

Atlas exists.

Therefore Atlas contains racists.

Mars exists, yet there are no racists on Mars (since no one lives there).  Therefore, step 1 of your argument is invalid.

Checkmate.

[Xing]

If Place A exists, Place A contains racists.

Atlas exists.

Therefore Atlas contains racists.

Mars exists, yet there are no racists on Mars (since no one lives there).  Therefore, step 1 of your argument is invalid.

Checkmate.

Fine, fine...

If Place A exists and contains human life, Place A contains racists.

Atlas exists and contains human life.

Therefore Atlas contains racists.

[AtorBoltox]

'Reformed' white nationalist ChairmanSanchez may be a racist, as shocking as that sounds.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

There are a great many. Recall Non-Swing Voter, ardent supporter of tax cuts. All the backers of the Iraq War. That guy who defended Thomas Ricketts. That's just the really bad ones.

+ Illinois Republicans

Thank God for Illinois Republicans!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

What totally and actually happened was that the Parties switched in 1964 when the racist Democrats became the racist Republicans.

Indeed. People like Norris Cotton, good Northerners who supported very staunchly the voting rights of blacks, yet opposed anti-discrimination legislation, became racists who only voted for the VRA of 1965 because they hoped to weaken it and destroy it.

Cotton was the only Senator from New England to vote against CRA

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

If Place A exists, Place A contains racists.

Atlas exists.

Therefore Atlas contains racists.

Mars exists, yet there are no racists on Mars (since no one lives there).  Therefore, step 1 of your argument is invalid.

Checkmate.

Fine, fine...

If Place A exists and contains human life, Place A contains racists.

Atlas exists and contains human life.

Therefore Atlas contains racists.

I have seen no evidence of human involvement in Atlas.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

'Reformed' white nationalist ChairmanSanchez may be a racist, as shocking as that sounds.

*annoying Mexican girl voice* like why you so obsessed with me punto?

[Coraxion]

Yes. Just don't say who they are, or you'll get your posts deleted for personal attacks.

I mean, you're still on Atlas, so that's one right here in this thread.

Yes. Just don't say who they are, or you'll get your posts deleted for personal attacks.

So, we aren't allowed to call you out?

I may hate some groups of people, but those groups aren't defined by skin color.

[Santander]

Yes. Just don't say who they are, or you'll get your posts deleted for personal attacks.

I mean, you're still on Atlas, so that's one right here in this thread.

Yes. Just don't say who they are, or you'll get your posts deleted for personal attacks.

So, we aren't allowed to call you out?

I may hate some groups of people, but those groups aren't defined by skin color.

It's sad that you're permitted to make such brazenly anti-Semitic statements with regularity without any mod intervention. Of your 771 posts, 300 of them are probably either hateful or defending something hateful you said.

[Coraxion]

Yes. Just don't say who they are, or you'll get your posts deleted for personal attacks.

I mean, you're still on Atlas, so that's one right here in this thread.

Yes. Just don't say who they are, or you'll get your posts deleted for personal attacks.

So, we aren't allowed to call you out?

I may hate some groups of people, but those groups aren't defined by skin color.

It's sad that you're permitted to make such brazenly anti-Semitic statements with regularity without any mod intervention. Of your 771 posts, 300 of them are probably either hateful or defending something hateful you said.

What? I'm not talking about Jews.

[Kingpoleon]

If Place A exists, Place A contains racists.

Atlas exists.

Therefore Atlas contains racists.

Hey, does your home exist?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yes. Just don't say who they are, or you'll get your posts deleted for personal attacks.

I mean, you're still on Atlas, so that's one right here in this thread.

Yes. Just don't say who they are, or you'll get your posts deleted for personal attacks.

So, we aren't allowed to call you out?

I may hate some groups of people, but those groups aren't defined by skin color.

It's sad that you're permitted to make such brazenly anti-Semitic statements with regularity without any mod intervention. Of your 771 posts, 300 of them are probably either hateful or defending something hateful you said.

What? I'm not talking about Jews.

I knew saving this was a good idea!

Stanton would be an infinitely better candidate.  I'm not sure why folks want Sinema to run and potentially blow one of our few good opportunities to pickup a Senate seat this cycle.

Gay atheists today, gay atheists tomorrow, gay atheists forever!

- Sinema used to be a spokeswoman for a group that was literally founded to support Palestinian terrorist liberation groups during the first Intifada (btw, Sinema has a long history of advocating anti-Israel policies and generally being an apologist for groups like the PLO, idk if this remained the case after she got elected to Congress though)

The fact that this is considered a liability shows how much we've decided to abandon what's right in favor of a prophecy in a fiction book written thousands of years ago.

Call me old-fashioned, but I always considered deliberately blowing up civilians and using the cold-blooded murder of non-combatants as a political strategy to be terrorism.  Then again, I also have this crazy idea that maybe...juuuuuuust maybe, it's wrong to try to blow up school buses filled with innocent children, so what do I know?

Israel has more blood on its hands. It's unfortunate, but some of those things are necessary to send a message.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Mike Naso/Reaganfan. An admitted White Supremacist who is only still here because he's too foolish to be taken seriously, unlike Ziggy.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There are a great many. Recall Non-Swing Voter, ardent supporter of tax cuts. All the backers of the Iraq War. That guy who defended Thomas Ricketts. That's just the really bad ones.

+ Illinois Republicans

Thank God for Illinois Republicans!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

^ this. this so much.

But, of course, there are racists/antisemites/homophobes etc... on atlas. As unfortunate and disturbing as it is.

Well, what does that mean?

Are you an anti-Semite if you have a view that the Palestinians are a legitimate party to the conflict in the Middle East and ought to be included in the discussion of the issue?  Or that you oppose the continuing development of new settlements by Israel in the West Bank? 

Are you a homophobe if you hold to a Biblical view of homosexuality?  Even if you do not advocate employment discrimination, open condemnation, etc, but insist that homosexuality is a Biblically prohibited activity and that God's view of marriage is that of a union between a man and a woman, period?

Are you a racist if you point out the disparity in violent crime rates as a response to the assertion of groups such as BLM to suggest that the folks most blacks need to fear the most are not police officers, but other black criminals in their midst who are (A) heavily armed, and (B) remorseless (at least until they're caught)?  Or if you advocate enforcement of immigration laws as they stand for the sake of the rule of law?

These are issues that are complicated.  On Israel, I'm fine with Zionism; the Jews have legitimate grievances as to being targeted for genocide repeatedly, and Zionism is a legitimate demand of an historically oppressed people for a piece of the World's turf that they actually have an historical claim to.  But I'm not seeking to encourage further settlements in the West Bank in a country where, if current birthrates prevail within present borders, will have an Arab majority in the future, and which will result either in defeat of the purpose for which Israel was created, or in some form of "second class citizenship" for Israeli Arabs.   

On homosexuality, I take a Biblical position, but I'm not for kicking in bedroom doors, and I'm not real excited about repealing SSM; it's a fait accompli, and if (as I believe) homosexuality is a sin, it's also true that what SSM couples do is "on them". 

On race and crime, I believe that there ought to be a serious discussion about the racial disparities in crime rates, and an examination of the significantly higher rate blacks commit violent crimes comparable to all other demographics.  What causes these numbers?  Is it all a statistical illusion?  If not, how much is?  If the numbers reflect an accurate picture, wouldn't it be important to discuss why this is so, in the hopes of reversing the trend?  Is it racist to prefer this to a false narrative? 

On immigration, I believe that our nation ought to keep faith with its people and enforce the laws its representatives have set.  That is the principle of the rule of law.  is it racist to believe that a country ought to enforce its own laws?  That folks don't have a right to come here?  That immigration policy ought to be based on the interests of the citizens of the receiving country?

Calling people "racists" has become a cheap way to try to win an argument on an issue that may favor one group over another when one group is, indeed, right on principle. 

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Racism is bad.

[Devout Centrist]

I don't know any in particular since Eharding was BTFO'd, but there are probably a few.

I guess Torie's resident bottom Krazen counts.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

I don't know any in particular since Eharding was BTFO'd, but there are probably a few.

I guess Torie's resident bottom Krazen counts.

I can name at least four racists on Atlas.