Kids with MAGA hats and Native Americans involved in... something

[Anathema-]

7 minutes ago, Commodore D said:

Don't know of Cleavon Little, also don't see the hat as racist.

 

 

 

Also, you can’t wear the hat as a brown guy for a joke without the tacit admission of what it stands for. Ain’t nobody gonna chuckle at your ass wearing an ‘I Like Ike’ button. 

[Kal-El814]

[Jason]

[Firewithin]

anyone just now entering...

 

[Bacon]

@SFLUFAN GIVE :dab2: YOU SLUT!

[stepee]

For a thread that included a lengthy debate of atheist vs agnostic, all I can think is “y’all need jesus”.

[ALIEN-gunner]

The MAGA hat is not a racist symbol because there are hundreds of thousands of minorities in the US who proudly wear it. The real problem is when white people try to tell minorities they are ignorant for wearing the hat because their views are automatically right and the minorities views are wrong because they can't think for themselves. That's the real racism today.  

[Commodore D]

12 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

 

 

 

Also, you can’t wear the hat as a brown guy for a joke without the tacit admission of what it stands for. Ain’t nobody gonna chuckle at your ass wearing an ‘I Like Ike’ button. 

First time seeing that; but I would enjoying going to a klan rally and listen as if I was one of them, some of the funniest things I've ever heard have come out of a knee deep in it racists mouth. I can only imagine what they say while wearing the hood; probably top shelf material.

 

Me wearing the hat would be funny because brown people aren't suppose to support Trump (or vote/ support R), not because I think it is a racist garb.

 

Plus, the joke is bunching panties, not ha look at that big brown guy wearing a MAGA hat. All the laughs are on my side.

[Commodore D]

14 minutes ago, Firewithin said:

anyone just now entering...

 

But at least now there is pizza. Sit down, take a piece and fellowship.

[Jason]

1 minute ago, ALIEN-gunner said:

The MAGA hat is not a racist symbol because there are hundreds of thousands of minorities in the US who proudly wear it.

 

[ALIEN-gunner]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

You're right, the number I offered was on the low end. There's a lot more. Step outside sometimes. Meet people outside of internet message boards. 

[Anathema-]

6 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

The backstory of this makes it all the more sweet. 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

lol

[mclumber1]

7 minutes ago, ALIEN-gunner said:

You're right, the number I offered was on the low end. There's a lot more. Step outside sometimes. Meet people outside of internet message boards. 

 

Only douche bags wear MAGA hats, or political hats in general. 

[Commodore D]

17 minutes ago, ALIEN-gunner said:

The MAGA hat is not a racist symbol because there are hundreds of thousands of minorities in the US who proudly wear it. The real problem is when white people try to tell minorities they are ignorant for wearing the hat because their views are automatically right and the minorities views are wrong because they can't think for themselves. That's the real racism today.  

Yup, its like the white cashier that says "Merry Christmas" to everyone in her line until she gets to the middle easter guy and says "Happy Holidays." 

 

Pure racism. 

 

 This actually happened a friend of mine this past Christmas season. That cashier has been PCed into being racist

[ALIEN-gunner]

It's being reported now that Phillips who said he's a Vietnam vet entered the military too late and didn't actually go to Vietnam.  

[CastlevaniaNut18]

2 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Except the Wikipedia page for atheism flatly states that atheism is "specifically the position that there are no deities". The dictionary definition of the term atheism  is: "1) the doctrine or belief that there is no God; or 2) disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings". I'm not trying to make an argument of this, just explaining my thinking/reasoning, where I'm coming from. In each of these instances, definitive terms like "no deities" and "no God" and "disbelief" indicate there is a sense of definitiveness - a belief that God does not exist. Not that he sorta/kinda might not exist, but that you belief God does not exist.

 

That does not mean one can't have doubts, even as an atheist (it's quite normal), but there is a clear distinction in believing in agnosticism, which clearly states: "I cannot say there is no God" as a belief system. Atheism isn't just a logical proposition, but a belief system, like any religion. Again, these terms are fluid (so I'm not trying to be too strict here) and atheism and agnosticism both have sliding scales in terms of belief and believers, but there is a clear distinction between atheists and agnostics and I think its important for atheists who say they are atheist to understand that that means you are making a clear statement of belief that God does not exist (as opposed to does exist). Otherwise, you are an agnostic, or non-religious, or irreligious, or something else, in terms of labels. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism

 

See my answer in this post to Cnut. I do believe there are qualifications with regard to a disbelief in God as an atheist. 

 

Believe isn't about certainty, but conviction. Atheists have the conviction that they believe with enough certainty to confidently say: "I do not believe there is a God" with the same kind of certainty afforded a theist who says confidently: "I do believe in a god". They are all belief systems, atheism included, and thus requires certain principles, convictions, and beliefs to ascribe to said philosophical system. Again, not trying to be too strict here by giving percentages in terms of certainty, as belief is more amorphous and vague than that, but conviction in one's beliefs is certainly a requirement for any belief system. 

 

 

I completely agree with you - see my response to Cnut in this same post to see what I'm driving at - and please follow up of course.

 

 

I don't really know what you're trying to argue anymore.

 

I also am a bit surprised you're using Wikipedia as your source. The actual definition of atheism is "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods" according to Merriam-Webster.  If you don't have a belief in a god, you're an atheist. It's pretty simple. I don't believe in a god, just like I don't believe in an invisible pink bunny, therefore I am an atheist, not agnostic. I would say the fact that I'm 99.99999999999whatever% sure is enough to state I'm pretty confident while also acknowledging that you can't prove a negative. 

 

This is just a really pedantic argument. I am an atheist. I take the same stance as the vast majority of atheists, including the most prominent atheists. 

 

 

 

 

Now let's go back to Boyle's dumb arguments with everyone else here, that's enough pedantry for one thread.

[marioandsonic]

I don't even know what this thread is about anymore.

[ALIEN-gunner]

I always thought the Athiest/Agnostic/Thiest differences went like this:

 

If you believe in a god you are a Thiest.

 

If you believe gods do not exist you're an Athiest.

 

If you don't believe in a god but are open to the possibilites of a god existing you are Agnostic. 

[ALIEN-gunner]

18 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Only douche bags wear MAGA hats, or political hats in general. 

That's quite possible.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, marioandsonic said:

I don't even know what this thread is about anymore.

Let’s bring it back to how literally everybody involved in the incident is some degree of terrible.

 

Nathan Philips claimed on CNN that he was a Vietnam veteran. He was never deployed to Vietnam. Stolen Valor!

[Joe]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Let’s bring it back to how literally everybody involved in the incident is some degree of terrible.

 

Nathan Philips claimed on CNN that he was a Vietnam veteran. He was never deployed to Vietnam. Stolen Valor!

 

He totally seems like an opportunist douche. 

[mclumber1]

15 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Let’s bring it back to how literally everybody involved in the incident is some degree of terrible.

 

Nathan Philips claimed on CNN that he was a Vietnam veteran. He was never deployed to Vietnam. Stolen Valor!

 

There is a degree of separation between someone who says they were a Vietnam vet and never served in the military, and a someone who says they were a Vietnam vet and never served in the country itself.  I would consider my father-in-law as a Vietnam vet, even though he was in the Navy and never spent a day in Vietnam itself.  Now, if you go on to claim you saw action or otherwise lie about your role during a war, yes, that's bordering on "stolen valor". 

[Joe]

2 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

There is a degree of separation between someone who says they were a Vietnam vet and never served in the military, and a someone who says they were a Vietnam vet and never served in the country itself.  I would consider my father-in-law as a Vietnam vet, even though he was in the Navy and never spent a day in Vietnam itself.  Now, if you go on to claim you saw action or otherwise lie about your role during a war, yes, that's bordering on "stolen valor". 

 

Fair.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

There is a degree of separation between someone who says they were a Vietnam vet and never served in the military, and a someone who says they were a Vietnam vet and never served in the country itself.  I would consider my father-in-law as a Vietnam vet, even though he was in the Navy and never spent a day in Vietnam itself.  Now, if you go on to claim you saw action or otherwise lie about your role during a war, yes, that's bordering on "stolen valor". 

 

The stolen valor thing is a joke. There are hundreds of hours of video on YouTube of military guys busting fake soldiers, usually at some point shouting “stolen valor!” at them.

 

And unless I’m mistaken, we had a lot of Navy ships in the South China Sea as part of the deployment to Vietnam. Why wouldn’t that count just the same as being on land?

[mclumber1]

Just now, sblfilms said:

 

The stolen valor thing is a joke. There are hundreds of hours of video on YouTube of military guys busting fake soldiers, usually at some point shouting “stolen valor!” at them.

 

And unless I’m mistaken, we had a lot of Navy ships in the South China Sea as part of the deployment to Vietnam. Why wouldn’t that count just the same as being on land?

 

I do get a chuckle out of it though when a chud gets called out for stolen valor in those videos. Can be a bit cringey sometimes.  I don't advocate for any laws on stolen valor though.

I suppose it's a personal thing as how military members care to identify when/how they served.  I'm a veteran who served during both OEF and OIF, but I do not like to consider myself a Iraq/Afghanistan war vet, as the closest I got to the front lines was standing watch in an engine room on an aircraft carrier.  

[Guest]

I can certainly understand that feeling on your part. I feel similarly as a biracial kid who is mostly white in appearance. I don’t feel like blackness belongs to me.

[Bacon]

I wonder if MAGA hat kid's life is ruined or if they'll be able to "spin" it. 

[Boyle5150]

22 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Depends on which Muslims, where, we're talking about. You are painting with an incredibly broad brush about all Muslims in general. I will only repeat myself one more time, please actually address what I'm saying rather than talking in circuitous logic.

 

1.     Wearing MAGA hats at an anti-abortion event as a young white male absolutely says a lot about yourself as a person, especially your political beliefs. This is flatly true.  

 Absolutely so long as the young male intended to go to that event and intended on wearing that hat.  Basically saying “I am anit-abortion”. 

2.     Seeing a Muslim (particularly in America) wearing traditional Muslim attire means nothing on its face, per se. 

Yes, particularly in America you can say that they most likely hold values within the tenants of Islam which quite frankly there are a vast many abhorrent beliefs within Islam, but one would be incorrect to simply say that any individual Muslim holds those views.  But It would equally be correct to say that most (practicing) Muslims, hold abhorrent beliefs.  Whether they act on them is a different topic. 

3.     So one can easily make an assumption about someone based on premise 1, but cannot make an assumption about premise 2.

No, one can make an assumption on both, and one can be wrong in their assumptions on both.  To say that the person holding the views is a pos is different than saying the beliefs of those people are shitty beliefs, are two different stories. 

 

And yes, you are an agnostic if you grant even the slightest chance that God could exist. The entire point of being an atheist is an absolute belief that God definitively doesn't exist in the same was that monotheistic religions require absolute belief that God does exist. Both are extremes that demand not just belief, but absolute belief. But these terms are fluid to a degree.

I’m not going to retype everything legend and Cnut wrote about this as I believe they covered it quite nicely.  So I will leave this one at that.  I will grant your technicality based solely on it’s standard definition, but disagree the way it is applied in the day to day and in philosophy. 

 

Anyways, so no, wearing Muslim attire is not inherently political, but wearing MAGA hats at an anti-abortion event absolutely is, so in the latter you can easily and happily judge the person based on their person and in the former, you cannot at all.

I mostly agree with this except for what I pointed out above. 

 

That's like saying me wearing a pro-Bernie t-shirt is the same as a Sikh man wearing a traditional Sikh turban in terms of conflating the two as being the same. They aren't: in the former I'm doing clear political speech with the shirt (equivalent to wearing a MAGA hat) whereas a Sikh man just existing wearing his attire says nothing of his personal or political values because religious interpretations for each religion can be so broad among that religions believers that no assumption can be made on attire alone.

This also depends on the context and location.  But otherwise mostly true.

 

The Supreme Court makes these very distinctions in terms of free speech with the first amendment. If they understand this concept, surely you can too. 

I fully understand it under the way its applied via the FA, you have no argument from me there. 

 

@Greatoneshere  Sorry for the delayed response 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Bacon said:

I wonder if MAGA hat kid's life is ruined or if they'll be able to "spin" it. 

His life isn’t ruined. He is about to go on a whirlwind tour of conservative media and will get some speaking fees in short order. He won the lottery.

[Boyle5150]

5 hours ago, Jose said:

So if I wear a swastika, but I say it's because of the Indian meaning of spirituality and divinity, would I be believed?

@Jose I found your question.... Context is everything. Given your current heritage I would be extremely shocked and would probably second guess you, but I would also rather hold judgement in the event that I was unsure, ie if you were an Indian .  

[Anathema-]

[Guest]

Just now, Anathema- said:

Two solid gifs posted in this thread and I’m thinking it’s time for a Community rewatch.

[Boyle5150]

4 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

exactly, in that context the answer would be a resounding no, you're most likely a racist pos

 

And within the context that this guy is an actor on a tv set, the answer is Context means absolutely everything.  

[Mr.Vic20]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Two solid gifs posted in this thread and I’m thinking it’s time for a Community rewatch.

I just re-watched 3 months ago, but I miss Troy & Abed in the morning already!