BLM claims racism in planetside 2

You should have used "his", because then you would have referred to the "Demigan". By using "their" you don't refer to my statement, and the only previous one in that conversation would be the OP's conversation.
So again, you messed up the context.

I'm not getting mad over a harmless suit of cards. Again, context. I'm "getting mad" over people trying to change the names of a harmless suit of cards into Racism. The difference is that "names of a suit of cards" is about nothing terrible than differentiation between the cards while "Racism" has a range of "not picking someone based on color/ethnicity" all the way up to "comitting genocide and slavery based on color/ethnicity". Actually, I'm getting mad about people who are changing one of the names of a card-game used in a video game from harmless to racism, and trying to gain power by forcing people into change even though there's absolutely no reason to.

Again, context, it's completely different. They are mad about that one name of a card-game used in a video game. I'm mad about the way they abuse the power of the racism lobby to force people to do things they want.

When I shaved earlier I thought of this thread

I thought "I wonder what I'd look like if I was black instead of white?"

Then it hit me....I said white

*triggered*

I started a club. It's called SWM - Saying White Matters

First on the agenda is banning milk.

what about brownies?

I don't know about that.......but you have to sign a declaration stating that you hate yourself and you must have 5 other white people who have witnessed your self hate and their signature also.

Then take your beef to the media. This is PS2. Last I saw male and female avatars have the SAME build, SAME haircuts. And you know what? No intercourse or appearance of it appears at all. So there's no reason for someone who think's they're 'broken' should get their jimmies or panties rustled.

And by the way... reread what I said. Nowhere did I say that sexuality should be kept out of public only applied to ONE kind of sexuality. I did shotgun blast it to cover all forms. Just because culture and media is biased, doesn't mean I am.

Hell one of my biggest complaints about Don't Ask/Don't Tell/Don't Harass being removed was the fact that it could simply be applied to all orientations. That would have made sense. It would have been fair and would have ensured Good Order and Discipline in the Military. No one needs to know, nor cares about someone's orientation, straight or otherwise, and its not pertinent to the mission. Letting everyone know what guy/girl/thing you banged last week does NOT help the mission.

But guess what replaced it? Oh wait.. you all didn't know DA/DT was replaced and not merely removed? Now openly gay servicemembers have to register in a database in order to -be- open about themselves. This is so they won't be billeted in barracks with one another. If you ask me that's the Scarlet Letter for the 21st Century. Using an -H- instead of an -A-. Say thank you for 'equality' to the current administration for that blunder.

In the future I will use "his". However, between your posts at the time and your profile there was nothing that reveals what you are so I defaulted to "they" because that's how English works. In my original post, "their" was a clear reference to "Demigan". For example, if someone says "Tom likes to drive, but she hasn't been in a car lately." One appropriate response would be: "Tom is an unusual name for a girl." Never, from that statement alone, would it be appropriate to go "Well obviously the person Tom was talking to previously was female." which is exactly what you're suggesting when you say "their" somehow referred to an irrelevant post.

Also, if it wasn't evident by how I have not been replying to 90% of your posts, I really don't care what a small handful of people (who may not even exist) in Florida want to do. I just wanted to point out it's easy to assume things and force events into a certain context one is familiar with - especially by accident. So I presumed you had a problem with my heartless analogy. My mistake.

...Although I can't say I wouldn't be delighted to learn that you assumed my entire position on the race thing.

Ah it's like that?

I am the best then.

My lesbian friend in the room with me says she doesn't agree with you on that, and no gay person she knows sees the flag as a political symbol We both agree though you sound like your just regurgitating buzz words without knowing their meaning, like "political narrative" "and gay rights activists"(They're actually just called Gay people emphasis on the "people") and using false comparisons to support your flawed argument.

nar·ra·tive
ˈnerədiv/
noun
1.
a spoken or written account of connected events; a story.


The pride flag is just that, a symbol of a LGBT persons pride in their sexuality. The original pride flag flew in the San Francisco Gay Freedom Day Parade on June 25, 1978. It's not a political symbol or political narrative
because it was not created to propagate or advance a political agenda, the rights of human beings are not a political agenda.

So why aren't you asking for them to remove the national pride flags then? If it's exactly the same as the pride flag, and is not politically neutral, then why did you only object to a rainbow flag called the "pride flag"?

No my intellectually challenged friend, the rainbow flag which represents LGBT pride in who they are and who they love isn't like a symbol designated to gender specific bathrooms, nor is the concept of sexuality the same as gender. Your analogies and comparisons are getting very weak . Step up.

You stopped wanting political neutrality when you made a complaint about the political nature of the wording of a rainbow flag banner in a online video game. If actually keeping politics out of the game was really your concern, then you wouldn't have made it an issue in the first place.

I am afraid your narrow perspective prevents you from seeing the forest for the trees my friend.

First, I would have just put this in my previous post except editing doesn't work for me.

So on to the reply: Okay.

You said you never understood the whole pride in sexuality thing. I tried to explain it. Humans generally don't like being alone. Media makes certain groups feel like they're alone. One way to get around this is for someone to put a rainbow on their character in a game where half the players wear pink camouflage and the other half have really loud vehicle horns. Player does it and it ends up saying "Hey you're not alone" to another player who may be playing to escape reality (and possibly for good reason.) That's it.

Sure would be nice if we were in a situation where it wasn't necessary. But, at this very moment, we aren't, and it can be a way to mitigate the problems. That's all I'm saying.

Hmm. Highly delusional to want it both ways. So not a de jure political symbol (according to you) but invoked as a de facto political symbol in rallies and parades. You say it's not a narrative but you are keen to say the date and event of introduction (the story). Very consistent logic,

Nonetheless the Daybreak-Planetside team agreed with the merits of my argument.

I think the real question is - how many Obamas is this thread worth?

Yes, just reply vaguely in a sarcastic tone to someone who is thoroughly addressing each of the points in your argument in a clear manner and dismantling them piece by piece, that always gets them.

I give this thread 2 Obamas and 1 Campbell's Soup ad.

Sure. "Weak minded"and "narrow perspective" me owes you respect after ad hominem rebuttals. Haha.

ReBUTTals?

Yeah I played that game once, in jail.

Show me exactly where I called you "weak minded", can't seem to find anywhere that I did. See THATS a narrative, a fictional one too. And yeah, sorry, "narrow perspective" is just an observation based on your generalization and assumption "Even gay rights activists (who I don't oppose mind you) would agree with me", when I'm actually sitting in the room with one who is disagreeing with you, so it's not an ad hominem.

However, "Blinded by your agenda that you can't fathom any reasonable position" is quite the ad hominem.

Keep trying the logical fallacy angle, maybe that will make you look less pretentious.

Hmm. I just paraphrased it. Don't care for ad hominem. You were the one crying about it first.

I believe you want to paint me as a bigot but it's not sticking. Not a single attack has been made against gays. I've argued for political neutrality the whole time but you've turned it into a gay crusade.

I'll make your day better for you. Do I support protection for gays against housing and employment discrimination? Yes. Do I support civil unions? Fine. Do I support gay marriage? Sure as long as it doesn't affect me. Do I like it when the LGBT agenda gets shoved down our throats (pun)? No.

So there we have it. Pride Banner is now called Full Spectrum Banner. Notice the pun?

Nah you seem to misunderstand me, I'm not calling you a bigot, I'm calling you pretentious and a bit ignorant. The regurgitating of political buzz words, associating the mere display or even discussion of human sexuality with a political agenda, the misunderstanding and misuse of logical fallacies. It all points to you just being, well, pretentious.

The fact you think I'm calling you a bigot shows how thin your skin is and how little you actually understand what you're reading and replying to.

Oh the travesty! Resort to ad hominem confirmed!

If I am simply pretentious and ignorant (cause - you know - you aren't), then this is just an exercise of semantics and probably a waste of time.

But no. I suspect that my critique of the "Pride Banner" on grounds of political neutrality (in a video game) is your interpretation of being an affront to your political views. So you start on this little crusade....

Semantics? I think not!