And then people will really wonder why I hate white Amerikans. "Invade this, bomb that, nuke the third", constantly slavering over the next genocide, and they wonder why 'cracker' is the nicest I've got for them.
Shut up, cracker; Obama's half-white, only identifies with his Blackness when it's convenient to the party (on some Aubrey Graham timing, no Drizzy), and never even considered putting in the work to killing the white man in his head. How else do you think he was allowed to take the presidency? If he was actually Black in heart and culture, he'd have never been allowed within spitting distance. Funny as shit to me that you'd really invoke the king of code switch like that's a defense for you.
While I'm here, let's address this "the problem is Amerika" bullshit. Do you really think crackers won't still be crackers even when the Empire falls? 'Cause I'm certain they'll be worse. Amerika is only a piece of the problem. The bigger slice is the darkness inside you and yours that has repeatedly jumped out and ruined shit for everyone around them for the past five, six hundred years. Colonialism, genocide, slavery, racketeering, mass incarceration; this is the White legacy you will have to reckon with for the rest of your history.
"No true scotsman..." I get it. So you define white/black in your mind based on someone's culture and politics. Kind of contentious to say the least. Pretty convenient for you that you get to call everyone you disagree with "cracker" though.
It would be arguing semantics to say "half-white" is problematic when by the usual definition half-POC is still POC. So I'll refrain.
It would be arguing semantics to say “half-white” is problematic when by the usual definition half-POC is still POC. So I’ll refrain.
Then clearly you're not in the culture; 'cause we don't claim anybody who bears the cracker's water. Like what you're doing right now. I'm sorry, would you rather I called you a minstrel like Obama continues to be instead?
Now that you've explained your unusually flexible view on race in the neighbouring thread, I think what you're saying is that "colonialist yahoos will continue to exist widespread even after the fall," and here we agree.
I expect you'll continue to find that people bicker with you when you go outside of your bubble because you refer to commonly understood concepts in abrasively inscrutable ways.
More than half of the people who voted, since he ended up getting elected to the Senate.
On another site I saw someone argue that some Republicans intentionally say outrageous things or introduce inflammatory bills on purpose just to get opposing parties and such to rage over it and then they turn around and use that to their advantage somehow.
I'm from in Belgium, and have colleagues from countries from both sides of the second world war. The carpet bombing of cities is still talked about every now and then. It's still remembered as one of the worst tragedies during that war (apart from the obvious), and the scars it left in many family trees still pain the people to this day.
Hearing stories from Gaza and the Donbas always remind me of the stories I used to hear from my grandfather, and I believed we left those war tactics behind in the last century. It's absolutely insane hearing an allied country to ours debating using those tactics again.
How is it even legal to call for the murder of so many people using one of the most atrocious weapons humanity has invented....but if one were to suggest to apply a guillotine to this person for doing so, they would be in severe legal trouble?
I’m shocked! Who could have guessed this slimy invertebrate would have zero regard for anyone but himself!?
It’s wild that if anyone were to suggest killing Lindsey Graham they would probably be arrested and called a terrorist. But he can just casually advocate for nuking a densely populated area that is inhabited mostly by civilians and a bunch of brain dead morons will still vote for him.
We have been saying that Israel is a moral and legal hazard to the entire world as it rallied its allies to throw out all resemblance of a rule based international order recognizing such basic human rights like not being slaughtered and having access to basic food, water and medicine.
What Israel is doing is exactly in line with a "Rule Based International Order", because the term itself was coined to sound like "a system of international law" while actually meaning "unilateral rule by a hegemon, who, along with its vessels, get to do as they please."
