m308gunner

Welcome aboard!

Welcome to VGS Pilgrim.

This one right here

Forgot this movie existed until this thread. Had some pretty decent nightmares as a kid. Especially what with the spider in the popcorn bowl. Wouldn't seek it out, but wouldn't seek to nuke it from orbit to be sure either. 5/5.

Welcome to VGS! The one that shall not be named is gone. We're just waiting for the new one to take it's place. Sit a spell, won't you?

Welcome home!

Welcome aboard. Glad to have you!

Welcome to aboard the good ship VGS!

Welcome Mr. Phantom.

Hey Ghosty, welcome aboard!

Welcome to VGS Rydub.

Welcome aboard!

Glad to have you Lambda!

Welcome to VGS!

Welcome to VGS Bucky!

Great googly moogly! Thanks for sharing indeed!

Great contacts and lists At your fingertips Fast shipping and more With DoctorEncore!

As I stated in my response to Arch, the ideologies behind your ideas (which look to hinge on identity politics (neomarxism)) present such a low resolution image of reality that to base your conduct on them would be extremely unwise if not outright dangerous. You are playing the game of lumping people into groups and ascribing those groups with certain characteristics. No spin required, but to include that statement is to betray any willingness on your part to give what I say a fair shake.

I'm really struggling to care if I lose any and all credibility with you. Just on the topic of "white privilege",... listen, I'd really like to deconstruct that topic alone and help you out of what is an already outdated mode of thinking, but things in real life are stacking up and I've already used alot of my free time for today responding to Arch. Maybe this weekend.

"Prejudice refers to a preconceived idea about a particular group, while racism involves an unequal distribution of power on the basis of race." The first warning should be the way they juxtapose the two terms prejudice and racism. One "refers", while the other "involves". It may be unintentional, but the framing to make the following ideas seem synonymous and equally valid in the context of the following article is misleading. The second, and biggest, is the idea that racism involves or results in a power dynamic, which is straight out of neomarxist thought - Every human interaction is a struggle for power, and the power hierarchy is the only thing that ultimately matters. After the fall of the soviet union, when many of the Marxist apologists in the west could no longer tow the line (because of the piles of dead bodies) they switched their tactic from a class/group based oppression game to an identity based oppression game, both of which are aimed at the human tendency to resent others because they have something you don't. Sound familiar? That is not to say that it has NEVER involved a power dynamic, but to try to state that it is intrinsic to racism is indicative that sociology has been compromised by said (provably failed) ideology. Third, prejudice and racism are not distinct ideas. They are often intertwined, no matter what a sociologist who's attempting to sell an ideology might tell you, and I would say that to be a racist would require prejudice. Also of note is that the definition they provide is apparently cherry picked to remove reason or experience and to support their assertions. Foe example, one can be prejudiced against all Christians because some Christians have been observed reacting or behaving in some observable manner (blame based on group identity being a favorite of Marxists). And since Christianity is not a race, racism doesn't apply, and so prejudice would have to be the definition one would use, and it would be based on reason and experience, for good or ill (mostly ill).

The problem is you seem to be so CERTAIN that the people you paint are exactly as you think they are. Genocides have been committed in that spirit, and you don't seem to care. And I may appear to paint broadly due to time and how bleedingly obvious the issue I mentioned is. And trying to label anything I say as republican propaganda is not an argument. Just because someone who MIGHT be of an opposing political position from you says something doesn't mean it inherently has no validity.

My God... the first "takeaway" alone disqualifies the article from receiving any serious critique, never mind that it's full from stem to stern with postmodern neomarxist garbage. You do yourself a disservice if you seriously follow that ideology.

Victimizing the victimizers by assuming you have a 100% clear picture of what justice, history or another human's heart/mind looks like?... Can you point to one instance in history where that has ever produced something good for any society? Because I can point to probably half a dozen instances in the past century alone that resulted in face melting horrors, the ripples of which the world is still dealing with today. And before you say "We're just calling them out", the left has not shown it possesses the capacity for moderating it's own conduct in regards to how far or fast it wants to push it's agenda on society (which is another huge topic of discussion in it's own right).

I'd like to, but there's not enough time in the day right now to pull together all the necessary strings of psychology, theology, politics, morality and history to give a fuller context to those that want to just slap the "bigot" label on things and move on.

I am trying to the utmost of my own very limited understanding and strength to bring a fair and balanced perception to the subjects at hand. I've had my perceptions of people, events, even reality shaken over the past couple years too many times to ever delve back into the old mode of assuming I knew what was in another human heart or mind (with a fair amount of trust issues and baggage to boot). And I can relate to your experiences in more ways than I have time to post right now. Good night VGS.