aluminiumtrioxid

lol

Heh, well that's surprising. Why? I generally make a point of saying "X [attitude] is racist", not "X [person expressing the attitude in question] is racist". Because claiming that the christian ethics, the concept of redemption and ethos, not to mention architecture and art having no bearing on the European heritage is wishful thinking at best. It did manage to screw up rather successfully how people relate to sex, I'll give you that. When I call people out on racist stuff they say, I rarely assume they did so maliciously. It doesn't make the statement less racist, though. Yes but alum if the person had no intention of racism it should make the whole thing seem much less of rude? It is less rude.

When I call people out on racist stuff they say, I rarely assume they did so maliciously. It doesn't make the statement less racist, though.

Are you... trying to guilt trip me about this?

It is prejudiced. The basis of this prejudice is the ethnicity of the country's inhabitants. Isn't that, like, the definition of racism?

"I imagine rape stats are pretty high in Hungary" is an exceedingly racist statement. It also misses its own point entirely. Why is this relevant now?

Okay, honest question: why is this important? Am I not seeing something everybody else does?

Western culture is just as much a product of ancient Greek and Enlightenment traditions, I'm really not seeing why do you want to single out christianity as a uniquely relevant part of these cultural pillars.

As you know, this is thought to be a flaw in the human mind (Dunning-Kruger), so you may well be asking for an impossibility. I dunno. Ever since I've heard of Dunning-Kruger, I follow the practice of "assume you have very little idea of what you're talking about unless you've spent years on it, and if someone turns out to have spent even more time and effort than you did, for chrissakes, listen to them". It works pretty well for me.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not expecting people to use correct English (although I most certainly will mock them mercilessly if they don't). But when someone is criticizing an entire philosophical framework, but at the same time demonstrates an utter lack of insight into and familiarity with said framework, I'm not going to take his criticism seriously. Basically: I know nothing about cars. I even forgot how the internal combustion engine works. But when people are discussing why a certain car doesn't work, I'm not going to butt in and start spewing my half-baked ideas about why it doesn't, because I'm capable of recognizing that I know nothing about the subject and would only embarrass myself by doing so. I think people should be more mindful of the limits of their knowledge.

Did "democracy" join the club of "words people use to mean completely different things than they mean" while I wasn't looking, like "freedom of speech" did?

But no you don't understand it actually went much deeper than that, don't you see? Her game was mentioned in an article rounding up games released that month! The corruption! It's unbearable!

He's talking about words with fixed meaning, and when he uses them to mean something entirely different, he comes across as an undereducated fool. Now tell me, why should I value the opinion of an undereducated fool?

Ironically, we also seem to have passed the point where there's much more outrage in the reaction to those opinions than in the actual opinions themselves. But I guess I shouldn't expect you to notice that.

These were completely valid points if we weren't living in a world that seems to have decided (hardcore?) gaming is mainly for men. As is, I see nothing wrong in prodding them a bit about the existence of different demographics.

...Said he, once again proving he has no ****ing clue whatsoever as to what modernism is.

I don't believe humanity will go extinct. I don't even believe technologically advanced civilization itself will cease to exist. But the huge majority is going to die, and it's delusional to think you can ensure the survival of specific people unless you're a billionaire.

I wouldn't mind if it wasn't so wasteful and stupid. You're dead anyway, why are you so intent on making other people's lives worse before the inevitable happens? Are you implying the current situation is the best thing for mankind? oh dear, oh dear. You're not making much sense here, I'm afraid. What do you mean by "current situation" and "best thing for mankind"? I'm not sure why I should be interested in my future generations, but let's assume I am. Do you think you, alone, can meaningfully impact the survival chances of your offspring in an event that wipes out most of humanity? I knew you were essentially statistically illiterate, but this is just delusional. The inevitable collapse of the global ecosystem won't happen in my lifetime, but indeed, I'm not planning on having any kids.

I wouldn't mind if it wasn't so wasteful and stupid. You're dead anyway, why are you so intent on making other people's lives worse before the inevitable happens?

That's... certainly a way of seeing it. A really ****ing stupid way, but nonetheless, a way.

Sadly it won't be as dramatic or egalitarian as it sounds. Indeed it won't. Then again, I never claimed it will be

As far as I know, climatologists are fairly confident we've passed the point of no return and are looking forward to a mass extinction event in a few generations. You won't really have to worry about the living environment of your children and grandchildren, because chances are, they're going to die for reasons completely unrelated to various forms of violence and injustice done by their fellow men. Ahhahahahahahaha.

I think global climate change is going to make sure your children won't need to worry about any of those things.

And people call me an authoritarian on these boards

If we do; give us your reasons why we should. With you so far. Unsure the wrong ideas are related to your conception of "cultural marxism", though. I'm not entirely convinced "bias" is the word you're looking for. Or that the idea is inherently "liberal". Then again, I'm fairly sure "liberal bias" is one of those phrases, like "cultural marxism", that tend to be used as a shorthand for "the other" in certain circles. I also disagree with the assertion that there are no social pressures/consensus regarding the way one is supposed to live or goals one is supposed to have in Europe. You may think these commonly held goals are not meaningful (I most certainly do!), but that's orthogonal to the point.