Topic: domestic abuse is closer than you think
Anonymous A started this discussion 12 years ago #34,319
postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 9 hours later[^] [v] #473,789
Looks like sex marks to me
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 16 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #473,793
Homosexual domestic abuse is almost completely ignored by same sex marriage advocates.
Meowth joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 50 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #473,804
I used to abuse this girl I was dating. It was pretty bad, and I was just texting my sister about it tonight. The funniest part is the girl I was dating told me these exact words, "I miss them."
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #473,816
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #473,817
dw skg II distribution co. llc joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #473,826
@473,804 (Meowth)
thats not funny though
@473,793 (C)
gay men get away with like everything are you surprised? they're men. shut the fuck up nerd
thats not funny though
@473,793 (C)
gay men get away with like everything are you surprised? they're men. shut the fuck up nerd
Meowth replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #473,847
Anonymous C replied with this 12 years ago, 11 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #473,942
@473,826 (dw skg II distribution co. llc)
Does your bf hit you sometimes? You can tell us, it's okay to talk about it.
Does your bf hit you sometimes? You can tell us, it's okay to talk about it.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #473,968
@473,793 (C)
Shockingly, gays are humans just like the rest of us and can be subject to the same flaws. Clearly, they should not get anything nice because of this.
Shockingly, gays are humans just like the rest of us and can be subject to the same flaws. Clearly, they should not get anything nice because of this.
Anonymous C replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #473,971
Domestic violence and spousal rape rates in homosexual vs heterosexual relationships would be interesting, but it relies on what is reported, and alcohol is probably one of the biggest factors anyway. It wouldn't surprise me if there is a blanket silence about it in the gay community, because they are fighting to get marriage equality.
I think most men don't report abuse by their female partners, because of the social stigma of being seen as being weaker than a woman. But for gays it would be like "Oh, your bf slapped you around a bit. Doesn't he already fuck you in the ass though?" And various other lines of police questioning.
Just stick to the domestic abuse golden rule never hit a woman that is wearing clothes
I think most men don't report abuse by their female partners, because of the social stigma of being seen as being weaker than a woman. But for gays it would be like "Oh, your bf slapped you around a bit. Doesn't he already fuck you in the ass though?" And various other lines of police questioning.
Just stick to the domestic abuse golden rule never hit a woman that is wearing clothes
Anonymous E replied with this 12 years ago, 56 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #473,973
Dw ltd joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 52 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #473,974
@473,971 (C)
I'm worried that you're misconstruing violent acts like hitting and slapping with sex acts like being naked and anal sex. Plus being subject to abuse doesn't make you weaker than your abuser.
I'm worried that you're misconstruing violent acts like hitting and slapping with sex acts like being naked and anal sex. Plus being subject to abuse doesn't make you weaker than your abuser.
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #473,988
@473,971 (C)
Better rule: don't hit a person who hasn't actually consented to getting hit. Works 99.5% of the time.
Better rule: don't hit a person who hasn't actually consented to getting hit. Works 99.5% of the time.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #473,990
Anonymous C replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #474,009
@473,974 (Dw ltd)
Well, I'm worried that you don't think hitting and slapping are sex acts, and that being naked is a sex act by itself. Also, how do you come to the conclusion that the abused is not weaker than the abuser?
Well, I'm worried that you don't think hitting and slapping are sex acts, and that being naked is a sex act by itself. Also, how do you come to the conclusion that the abused is not weaker than the abuser?
Anonymous C double-posted this 12 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #474,010
Anonymous C triple-posted this 12 years ago, 29 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #474,011
dw skg II distribution co. llc replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #474,020
@474,009 (C)
i'm not going to debate fetishization of violence with a dude whose policy is to only hit unclothed women
most of the time domestic abuse has nothing to do with strength thanks
i'm not going to debate fetishization of violence with a dude whose policy is to only hit unclothed women
most of the time domestic abuse has nothing to do with strength thanks
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,027
@474,011 (C)
Also apparently a joke: Colbert's ~ironic~ racism and transphobia.
Yeah, no, you can't appeal to comedy to defend everything.
Also apparently a joke: Colbert's ~ironic~ racism and transphobia.
Yeah, no, you can't appeal to comedy to defend everything.
Anonymous C replied with this 12 years ago, 11 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,072
@474,020 (dw skg II distribution co. llc)
No. It's the stronger and more aggressive man beating the weaker woman, open your eyes to the rest of the world,
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
It's called satire, people like you don't get it and it makes it even funnier for the rest of us. Thanks
Also, that girl that started the colbet shit is a privileged racist.
No. It's the stronger and more aggressive man beating the weaker woman, open your eyes to the rest of the world,
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
It's called satire, people like you don't get it and it makes it even funnier for the rest of us. Thanks
Also, that girl that started the colbet shit is a privileged racist.
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,073
Anonymous L double-posted this 12 years ago, 46 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,074
What about abuse of self?
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,090
@474,072 (C)
l m f a o
So you're literally admitting that it's funny that people are hurt by your "ironic racism". Pfffffahahahahah, that sounds kinda fucking racist. "We're gonna shout racist tropes and laugh at the fact that the people actually affected feel hurt by it."
PS: yes, Park was a university student. No, she isn't racist, from what I've seen — there is no structural oppression of white people as a group.
@474,073 (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
Nnnnaaaaahhhhhhh. I'm not leaving him out of it.
l m f a o
So you're literally admitting that it's funny that people are hurt by your "ironic racism". Pfffffahahahahah, that sounds kinda fucking racist. "We're gonna shout racist tropes and laugh at the fact that the people actually affected feel hurt by it."
PS: yes, Park was a university student. No, she isn't racist, from what I've seen — there is no structural oppression of white people as a group.
@474,073 (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
Nnnnaaaaahhhhhhh. I'm not leaving him out of it.
Ash !bbKEtchUp. joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,098
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,099
@previous (Ash !bbKEtchUp.)
As a group. It'd be fucking ridiculous for me to imply that white people are outright exempt from any and all oppression. :v
As a group. It'd be fucking ridiculous for me to imply that white people are outright exempt from any and all oppression. :v
Dw ltd replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,108
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,127
Dw ltd replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,143
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
No you're just annoying ass hell i just can't stand you. It's you. Not the politics you little shit i don't even read your half baked replies
No you're just annoying ass hell i just can't stand you. It's you. Not the politics you little shit i don't even read your half baked replies
Dw ltd double-posted this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,144
!iH0dKz0pn2 joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,154
Meta joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,156
@474,090 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
Depriving PoC of the ability to be racist is, ironically, quite racist.
Depriving PoC of the ability to be racist is, ironically, quite racist.
Dw ltd replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,157
Dw ltd double-posted this 12 years ago, 44 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,158
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 25 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,162
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,174
@474,156 (Meta)
That's... some... interesting logic. (I'd be lying if I said that PoC can't be racist, though - I've actually seen it happen - it's just that racism against white people, by anyone in societyas it currently exists, is currently impossible.)
@474,143 (Dw ltd)
@474,144 (Dw ltd)
@474,157 (Dw ltd)
@474,158 (Dw ltd)
Dude, just, like... literally, just fuck off. You're making no fucking sense.
@474,154 (!iH0dKz0pn2)
the fuck, dude
That's... some... interesting logic. (I'd be lying if I said that PoC can't be racist, though - I've actually seen it happen - it's just that racism against white people, by anyone in society
@474,143 (Dw ltd)
@474,144 (Dw ltd)
@474,157 (Dw ltd)
@474,158 (Dw ltd)
Dude, just, like... literally, just fuck off. You're making no fucking sense.
@474,154 (!iH0dKz0pn2)
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,175
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
Just not against white people. Just like you can be sexist, just not against men. Because reasons. You're still denying PoC the ability to be racist against white people. Honestly, as a proud PoW (person of whiteness) I'm fine if people want to be racist against whites. I don't agree with it or think it's a good thing, but it's their right. Saying you can't be racist if you hate whites is racist. We can argue about the Newspeak "power+prejudice" thing but at the end of the day, you're telling people what they can and can't do based on the color of their skin.
Just not against white people. Just like you can be sexist, just not against men. Because reasons. You're still denying PoC the ability to be racist against white people. Honestly, as a proud PoW (person of whiteness) I'm fine if people want to be racist against whites. I don't agree with it or think it's a good thing, but it's their right. Saying you can't be racist if you hate whites is racist. We can argue about the Newspeak "power+prejudice" thing but at the end of the day, you're telling people what they can and can't do based on the color of their skin.
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,179
@previous (Meta)
> you're telling people what they can and can't do based on the color of their skin.
That's some bizarre reasoning. I'm just saying that, in the current societal context, it's literally impossible to oppress whiteness itself. Like, you'd need to forcibly adjust the ideology, and redistribute the property and positions, of billions of people to make it happen. I'm not ordering anyone to not do things. I'm just... stating that A Thing is currently impossible. (PS: it's absolutely possible to be prejudiced against white people, no fucking shit! Just that it lacks the same social backing as prejudices against other races, so... not racism!)
PPS: I'm just using the definition agreed upon by most of the anti-racists that I've read theory from and/or talked to. I... kinda meet every definition of whiteness out there, so I'm not gonna claim oppression along racial lines against myself, or force my own trash into their discourse.
> you're telling people what they can and can't do based on the color of their skin.
That's some bizarre reasoning. I'm just saying that, in the current societal context, it's literally impossible to oppress whiteness itself. Like, you'd need to forcibly adjust the ideology, and redistribute the property and positions, of billions of people to make it happen. I'm not ordering anyone to not do things. I'm just... stating that A Thing is currently impossible. (PS: it's absolutely possible to be prejudiced against white people, no fucking shit! Just that it lacks the same social backing as prejudices against other races, so... not racism!)
PPS: I'm just using the definition agreed upon by most of the anti-racists that I've read theory from and/or talked to. I... kinda meet every definition of whiteness out there, so I'm not gonna claim oppression along racial lines against myself, or force my own trash into their discourse.
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 40 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,186
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
> so... not racism!
And I'm using the commonly accepted definition of racism. If you're prejudiced against a group of people based solely on their race, how is it not? If I said "all black people are X" it would be racist. If I said "all white people are Y" it would also be racist.
> I'm not gonna claim oppression along racial lines against myself,
I'm not either. I'm just saying it's possible for non-whites to be racist against anyone they want to be.
> I... kinda meet every definition of whiteness out there
There is no coherent definition of whiteness. Everyone has their own personal definition, no two people really agree fully -- especially at the margins. Same for any of the other arbitrary racial groups we've constructed.
> force my own trash into their discourse.
Why would it be trash? Who're "they"?
> so... not racism!
And I'm using the commonly accepted definition of racism. If you're prejudiced against a group of people based solely on their race, how is it not? If I said "all black people are X" it would be racist. If I said "all white people are Y" it would also be racist.
> I'm not gonna claim oppression along racial lines against myself,
I'm not either. I'm just saying it's possible for non-whites to be racist against anyone they want to be.
> I... kinda meet every definition of whiteness out there
There is no coherent definition of whiteness. Everyone has their own personal definition, no two people really agree fully -- especially at the margins. Same for any of the other arbitrary racial groups we've constructed.
> force my own trash into their discourse.
Why would it be trash? Who're "they"?
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 28 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,198
@previous (Meta)
> And I'm using the commonly accepted definition of racism. If you're prejudiced against a group of people based solely on their race, how is it not? If I said "all black people are X" it would be racist. If I said "all white people are Y" it would also be racist.
The definition that you're using is trash - it's almost always used to shut down actually useful discourse about race. I'll be sticking with the one that's used by people who actually discuss racism, not Oxford English Dictionary editors.
> I'm not either. I'm just saying it's possible for non-whites to be racist against anyone they want to be.
Under your broken definition, yes.
> There is no coherent definition of whiteness. Everyone has their own personal definition, no two people really agree fully -- especially at the margins. Same for any of the other arbitrary racial groups we've constructed.
Well, that's a thing, yes, but the whole existence of the construction of race relies upon roughly overlapping, compatible definitions of races being held by a fair majority of the people in a society, especially in positions of elevated social power.
> Why would it be trash? Who're "they"?
Personal observation, honestly. I've got close to nothing of use to race discourse.
As for who "they" is, I'm referring to people on the oppressed end of racism engaging in discussion of and activism against racism as a societal structure.
> And I'm using the commonly accepted definition of racism. If you're prejudiced against a group of people based solely on their race, how is it not? If I said "all black people are X" it would be racist. If I said "all white people are Y" it would also be racist.
The definition that you're using is trash - it's almost always used to shut down actually useful discourse about race. I'll be sticking with the one that's used by people who actually discuss racism, not Oxford English Dictionary editors.
> I'm not either. I'm just saying it's possible for non-whites to be racist against anyone they want to be.
Under your broken definition, yes.
> There is no coherent definition of whiteness. Everyone has their own personal definition, no two people really agree fully -- especially at the margins. Same for any of the other arbitrary racial groups we've constructed.
Well, that's a thing, yes, but the whole existence of the construction of race relies upon roughly overlapping, compatible definitions of races being held by a fair majority of the people in a society, especially in positions of elevated social power.
> Why would it be trash? Who're "they"?
Personal observation, honestly. I've got close to nothing of use to race discourse.
As for who "they" is, I'm referring to people on the oppressed end of racism engaging in discussion of and activism against racism as a societal structure.
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 41 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,215
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
> The definition that you're using is trash - it's almost always used to shut down actually useful discourse about race. I'll be sticking with the one that's used by people who actually discuss racism, not Oxford English Dictionary editors.
But your definition is also used to shut down discourse about race: by defining a category of racism out of existence. The dictionary definition allows for anyone to be racist against anyone. I don't see how that shuts anything down.
> >I'm not either. I'm just saying it's possible for non-whites to be racist against anyone they want to be.
> Under your broken definition, yes.
Please tell me how my definition is broken? It allows for anyone to be racist against anyone else.
> >There is no coherent definition of whiteness. Everyone has their own personal definition, no two people really agree fully -- especially at the margins. Same for any of the other arbitrary racial groups we've constructed.
> Well, that's a thing, yes, but the whole existence of the construction of race relies upon roughly overlapping, compatible definitions of races being held by a fair majority of the people in a society, especially in positions of elevated social power.
> >Why would it be trash? Who're "they"?
> Personal observation, honestly. I've got close to nothing of use to race discourse.
> As for who "they" is, I'm referring to people on the oppressed end of racism engaging in discussion of and activism against racism as a societal structure.
But that's what you strive for in life. Why shouldn't you play a part in dismantling racism?
> The definition that you're using is trash - it's almost always used to shut down actually useful discourse about race. I'll be sticking with the one that's used by people who actually discuss racism, not Oxford English Dictionary editors.
But your definition is also used to shut down discourse about race: by defining a category of racism out of existence. The dictionary definition allows for anyone to be racist against anyone. I don't see how that shuts anything down.
> >I'm not either. I'm just saying it's possible for non-whites to be racist against anyone they want to be.
> Under your broken definition, yes.
Please tell me how my definition is broken? It allows for anyone to be racist against anyone else.
> >There is no coherent definition of whiteness. Everyone has their own personal definition, no two people really agree fully -- especially at the margins. Same for any of the other arbitrary racial groups we've constructed.
> Well, that's a thing, yes, but the whole existence of the construction of race relies upon roughly overlapping, compatible definitions of races being held by a fair majority of the people in a society, especially in positions of elevated social power.
> >Why would it be trash? Who're "they"?
> Personal observation, honestly. I've got close to nothing of use to race discourse.
> As for who "they" is, I'm referring to people on the oppressed end of racism engaging in discussion of and activism against racism as a societal structure.
But that's what you strive for in life. Why shouldn't you play a part in dismantling racism?
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 35 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,218
@previous (Meta)
> But your definition is also used to shut down discourse about race: by defining a category of racism out of existence. The dictionary definition allows for anyone to be racist against anyone. I don't see how that shuts anything down.
It's literally used to argue that the whole concept of privilege, and any discussion of it, is racist. I see it all the fucking time. By making a semantic distinction between prejudice and oppression, you make it possible to meaningfully discuss oppression while having a barrier to interference by poorly-intentioned privileged people. (You can still use the term "being mean to white people" to describe prejudice against white people - it's an accurate description of what prejudice against white people functionally is in the context of a white supremacist society.)
@previous (Meta)
> Please tell me how my definition is broken? It allows for anyone to be racist against anyone else.
It shoves oppressive bigotry and distrust of the privileged into the same term. There needs to be a vast semantic distinction between the two - a Black person being wary of white cops isnot even remotely equivalent to, say, Jim Crow laws.
> But your definition is also used to shut down discourse about race: by defining a category of racism out of existence. The dictionary definition allows for anyone to be racist against anyone. I don't see how that shuts anything down.
It's literally used to argue that the whole concept of privilege, and any discussion of it, is racist. I see it all the fucking time. By making a semantic distinction between prejudice and oppression, you make it possible to meaningfully discuss oppression while having a barrier to interference by poorly-intentioned privileged people. (You can still use the term "being mean to white people" to describe prejudice against white people - it's an accurate description of what prejudice against white people functionally is in the context of a white supremacist society.)
@previous (Meta)
> Please tell me how my definition is broken? It allows for anyone to be racist against anyone else.
It shoves oppressive bigotry and distrust of the privileged into the same term. There needs to be a vast semantic distinction between the two - a Black person being wary of white cops is
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 29 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,221
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
Again: PoC can't be racist. Because they're not white. Racism, like the beaches in old South Africa, is reserved for whites.
Again: PoC can't be racist. Because they're not white. Racism, like the beaches in old South Africa, is reserved for whites.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 59 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,228
@previous (Meta)
You're entirely misunderstanding. PoC can be racist - it's not even rare or anything. Usually, but not always, non-Black PoC throwing Black people under the bus. Sometimes non-indigenous PoC shitting on indigenous people, as well.
On the other hand, though,racism against white people literally doesn't exist. There is no structure of racial oppression against whiteness.
So yes, PoC can participate in racism, butthere is literally no such thing as racism against white people.
You're entirely misunderstanding. PoC can be racist - it's not even rare or anything. Usually, but not always, non-Black PoC throwing Black people under the bus. Sometimes non-indigenous PoC shitting on indigenous people, as well.
On the other hand, though,
So yes, PoC can participate in racism, but
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Dw ltd replied with this 12 years ago, 18 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,232
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,234
@474,228 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
> On the other hand, though, racism against white people literally doesn't exist. There is no structure of racial oppression against whiteness.
what? That's not right, people can in fact be racist against white people. All you have to do is hate someone for being a different race than you... if you have no other reason to hate someone except for their color then you are a racist. racism is not exclusive to white people.
...you should really try visiting an American Indian reservation for some perspective on this,
they are very very racist against white people specifically. i've spent quite a bit of time around reservation indians up in Pawhuska, fun group. but racist as fuck.
> On the other hand, though, racism against white people literally doesn't exist. There is no structure of racial oppression against whiteness.
what? That's not right, people can in fact be racist against white people. All you have to do is hate someone for being a different race than you... if you have no other reason to hate someone except for their color then you are a racist. racism is not exclusive to white people.
...you should really try visiting an American Indian reservation for some perspective on this,
they are very very racist against white people specifically. i've spent quite a bit of time around reservation indians up in Pawhuska, fun group. but racist as fuck.
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,235
@474,232 (Dw ltd)
~shut up~
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Do they have any institutional power with which to oppress white people?
...
...
...
...yeah, no. That's prejudice against the people whose recent ancestors attempted literal fucking genocide upon them, not structurally backed racism. I'm never gonna give PoC shit for having an issue with white people. Our ancestors treated them terribly, most of our contemporaries are fucking trash to them too, and our descendants will probably only improve over our generation glacially.
~shut up~
@previous (squeegee !first/o5zA)
Do they have any institutional power with which to oppress white people?
...
...
...
...yeah, no. That's prejudice against the people whose recent ancestors attempted literal fucking genocide upon them, not structurally backed racism. I'm never gonna give PoC shit for having an issue with white people. Our ancestors treated them terribly, most of our contemporaries are fucking trash to them too, and our descendants will probably only improve over our generation glacially.
(Edited 53 seconds later.)
squeegee joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 57 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,236
oh yeah, but don't visit the reservation if you're white. you'll just get ripped off, made fun of behind your back, and possibly even arrested. your kind aren't welcome there, tbh.
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,237
@previous (squeegee)
Kinda reasonable, consideringholy shit, please look at the past 522 years of history, Jesus fucking Christ.
Kinda reasonable, considering
squeegee replied with this 12 years ago, 20 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,238
@474,235 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
sure do, osage are a sovereign nation with a tribal police and justice system. you kinda don't want to stay there too long if you know what's good for you, whiteman.
sure do, osage are a sovereign nation with a tribal police and justice system. you kinda don't want to stay there too long if you know what's good for you, whiteman.
squeegee double-posted this 12 years ago, 29 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,239
do come to the casino though ^^
squeegee triple-posted this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,240
but leave when you run out of moneydecibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,241
@474,238 (squeegee)
Ah yes, do tell me more about Osage's army with millions of soldiers, tens of thousands of nukes, thousands upon thousands of billionaires, and tens of trillions of dollars of GDP.
Oh, right.
Ah yes, do tell me more about Osage's army with millions of soldiers, tens of thousands of nukes, thousands upon thousands of billionaires, and tens of trillions of dollars of GDP.
squeegee replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,242
one day a whiteman from the city came and said, "i'm going on to your land to count your livestock."
the indian said, "no, you can't go onto that land."
the whiteman said, "i can, i have on this paper permission from the US government."
the whiteman then crossed the fence and went on to the land. a few minutes later he was seen running for his life from an angry bull. the whiteman yelled, "don't just stand there, help me."
the indian said, "show him your paper!"
the indian said, "no, you can't go onto that land."
the whiteman said, "i can, i have on this paper permission from the US government."
the whiteman then crossed the fence and went on to the land. a few minutes later he was seen running for his life from an angry bull. the whiteman yelled, "don't just stand there, help me."
the indian said, "show him your paper!"
squeegee double-posted this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,243
@474,241 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
dude... you're setting the bar really high. no one has multiple million man armies, tensof thousands of nukes nor thousands of billionaires. what planet are you from?
i can be racist with nothing more than a tree and a noose, you tool.
dude... you're setting the bar really high. no one has multiple million man armies, tensof thousands of nukes nor thousands of billionaires. what planet are you from?
i can be racist with nothing more than a tree and a noose, you tool.
squeegee triple-posted this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,244
@474,237 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
oh please won't you regale me with the history of my people.
twat
oh please won't you regale me with the history of my people.
twat
squeegee quadruple-posted this 12 years ago, 49 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,245
honestly, this is why we hate white people, they're so greedy they even want all the racism for themselves
squeegee quintuple-posted this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,246
An osage guy went to Chinatown in San Francisco. While there he found a bronze rat at a thrift store. "How much do you want for the rat" he asked. "$3 for the rat and $1000 for the story that goes with it" said the shopkeeper. "Just give me the rat," the indian said, and then he left with it. As he walked down the street he noticed a couple of rats following him. As he walked further, more and more rats started chasing him. By the time he got to the bay, there were thousands of rats chasing him. So he climbed up a pole and threw the bronze rat into the water. To his amazement, all the rats jumped into the water.
The indian then returned to the thrift store. "Ahh" the china man said. "Now you would like to hear the story?"
"No" said the indian, "I just came back to see if you had any bronze white men!"
The indian then returned to the thrift store. "Ahh" the china man said. "Now you would like to hear the story?"
"No" said the indian, "I just came back to see if you had any bronze white men!"
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 0 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,247
@474,228 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
That's like saying: "you can be as sexist as you want -- just not against men".
That's like saying: "you can be as sexist as you want -- just not against men".
squeegee replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,249
@previous (Meta)
i had a whiteman friend in school who went to the geneology library in pawhuska to do research on the "legacy" of the tribe for an anthropology thing. he said while he was in the library the staff all not-so-quietly started telling racist whiteman jokes. he got the impression they didn't like him rooting through their history to write yet-another whitemans perspective on the tribe. mostly because they said so.
i had a whiteman friend in school who went to the geneology library in pawhuska to do research on the "legacy" of the tribe for an anthropology thing. he said while he was in the library the staff all not-so-quietly started telling racist whiteman jokes. he got the impression they didn't like him rooting through their history to write yet-another whitemans perspective on the tribe. mostly because they said so.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Dw ltd replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,251
@474,247 (Meta)
Lol that's true tho misandry isn't a thing my iphone should be underlining the word in red
Lol that's true tho misandry isn't a thing my iphone should be underlining the word in red
Dw ltd double-posted this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,252
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,253
@474,241 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
> Ah yes, do tell me more about Osage's army with millions of soldiers, tens of thousands of nukes, thousands upon thousands of billionaires, and tens of trillions of dollars of GDP.
Actually, there are only 1,426 billionaires in the world, 442 of which are in the US.
@474,244 (squeegee)
Mine too!
> Ah yes, do tell me more about Osage's army with millions of soldiers, tens of thousands of nukes, thousands upon thousands of billionaires, and tens of trillions of dollars of GDP.
Actually, there are only 1,426 billionaires in the world, 442 of which are in the US.
@474,244 (squeegee)
Mine too!
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,259
lol whiteman, I haven't heard that before but I'm guessing they are urban indian and born from people who aren't racist. Half breeds everywhere suffer more than the oppressed pure race. In SA the kaffirs call them coloured, I know them as half-castes. Racism is practiced by all races and unless you are one of us, you are one of them. Niggers.
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #474,267
@474,237 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
Actually, the Norse were the first shitlords and were oppressing the First Nations 500 years before Columbus.
I really hate the "Columbus discovered America" myth because it's so full of falsehoods.
Actually, the Norse were the first shitlords and were oppressing the First Nations 500 years before Columbus.
I really hate the "Columbus discovered America" myth because it's so full of falsehoods.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 1 week later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #475,535
this thread went all wrong
dw ltd replied with this 12 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #475,538
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #475,602
itt: kittydragon is fucking retarded