Texas State Newspaper writer fired for racist column

[Bob the Gunslinger]

edit: nevermind.

[Effie]

There's a difference between saying "it's inflammatory to ask for 'gay marriage' when you could instead ask for 'domestic unions' ..."

And saying "it's inflammatory to literally say things like "I hate you all," "you X people are all the same," "there are almost no decent X people" and "X should die." "

It takes borderline terminal blindness or smugness to be unable to recognize or acknowledge this difference. And I have grown utterly weary of even trying to interact with people who lack this capability.

EDIT:

It is the special privilege of the obnoxious fool to verbally abuse those who are willing to sit still for it for the sake of a greater cause. The obnoxious fool can become blind to this privilege, over time, and never realize that they are poisoning the wells from which their cause draws strength.

It is the special privilege of the obnoxious fool to verbally abuse those who are willing to sit still for it for the sake of a greater cause. The obnoxious fool can become blind to this privilege, over time, and never realize that they are poisoning the wells from which their cause draws strength.

never realize that they are poisoning the wells from which their cause draws strength.

poisoning the wells from which their cause draws strength.

Pretty gutsy to argue people of color are totally dependent on white people to achieve anything.

4. You didn't address the fucking point that you (collective you) are harming your own cause when you insist on communicating with the other 99% using jargon apparently designed to sound inflammatory to anyone not initiated. What are you even trying to accomplish?

You know, last I heard that phrase trotted out regularly it was when advocates were fighting hard for gay marriage and people kept pushing back with "You're hurting your cause, ask for domestic unions instead so you're not so inflammatory."

You really don't see the difference between "don't ask for full equality" and "don't tell people you hate them and wish they were dead because of a condition of their birth"? Really?

For fuck's sake, I made calls and stood at street corners campaigning for marriage equality. Good to know I should have just given up because I wasn't pure enough for the cause.

You should have given up because your whining clearly took a decade off your fellow activists' lives, judging by your posting in this thread.

[Straha]

4. You didn't address the fucking point that you (collective you) are harming your own cause when you insist on communicating with the other 99% using jargon apparently designed to sound inflammatory to anyone not initiated. What are you even trying to accomplish?

You know, last I heard that phrase trotted out regularly it was when advocates were fighting hard for gay marriage and people kept pushing back with "You're hurting your cause, ask for domestic unions instead so you're not so inflammatory."

You really don't see the difference between "don't ask for full equality" and "don't tell people you hate them and wish they were dead because of a condition of their birth"? Really?

For fuck's sake, I made calls and stood at street corners campaigning for marriage equality. Good to know I should have just given up because I wasn't pure enough for the cause.

1. Nobody is telling people they wish they were dead. They're saying that they wish Whiteness weren't a thing.

2. Look to my reply to Romulan Republic. Why shouldn't someone on the Navajo reservation hate White People? I mean that, seriously, why not?
2A. How is it unreasonable for them to look at the United States and the history of their relationship with the United States and not conclude that the United States, its government, and probably its people want them dead or, at the very least, gone?
2B. Ditto people in Flint Michigan who went without water for years.

3. Why should the presumption be that you're an ally when your first response to "There are massive issues of structural racism that make antagonism inevitable without radically changing society in ways that will undo whiteness" was "Does this mean I have to side with the oppressors?" Simon I get is trying to work this through. Props to him. I don't get why that response somehow earns you the benefit of the doubt?

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Bullshit, Straha.

[Effie]

Now, this is anecdotal, but I've interacted in various forms of friendly-like ways with all manner of radical people of color and I have never experienced any murder attempts. I suppose it's just possible that I am lucky, or that there's a deep-rooted conspiracy ongoing, or it could also be the case that the insistence that the only alternative to white supremacy is death does not originate with the activists.

[Simon_Jester]

Effie, at some point you either started bullshitting on purpose, or stopped noticing the difference between truth, flamboyant rhetoric, and unadulterated bullshit.

Enjoy twisting words and stereotyping. I hope you don't do as much more-harm-than-good as I expect you to.

[Effie]

Effie, at some point you either started bullshitting on purpose, or stopped noticing the difference between truth, flamboyant rhetoric, and unadulterated bullshit.

Enjoy twisting words and stereotyping. I hope you don't do as much more-harm-than-good as I expect you to.

Hey man, I'm not the person who decided to say that anti-racism's strength comes from white people, so I'm sitting pretty.

[Straha]

Bullshit, Straha.

So, I'm just going to quote two sections of an article on White Fragility. I highly recommend reading the whole thing, it's well written and well-explained. I've bolded parts of the "What does White Fragility look like?" quote.

In the dominant position, whites are almost always racially comfortable and thus have developed unchallenged expectations to remain so (DiAngelo, 2006b). Whites have not had to build tolerance for racial discomfort and thus when racial discomfort arises, whites typically respond as if something is “wrong,” and blame the person or event that triggered the discomfort (usually a person of color).

This blame results in a socially-sanctioned array of counter-moves against the perceived source of the discomfort, including: penalization; retaliation; isolation; ostracization; and refusal to continue engagement. White insistence on racial comfort ensures that racism will not be faced. This insistence also functions to punish those who break white codes of comfort. Whites often confuse comfort with safety and state that we don’t feel safe when what we really mean is that we don’t feel comfortable. This trivializes our history of brutality towards people of color and perverts the reality of that history. Because we don’t think complexly about racism, we don’t ask ourselves what safety means from a position of societal dominance, or the impact on people of color, given our history, for whites to complain about our safety when we are merely talking about racism.

...


Because of white social, economic and political power within a white dominant culture, whites are positioned to legitimize people of color’s assertions of racism. Yet whites are the least likely to see, understand, or be invested in validating those assertions and being honest about their consequences, which leads whites to claim that they disagree with perspectives that challenge their worldview, when in fact, they don’t understand the perspective.Thus, theyconfuse not understanding with not agreeing. This racial arrogance, coupled with the need for racial comfort, also has whites insisting that people of color explain white racism in the “right” way. The right way is generally politely and rationally, without any show of emotional upset. When explained in a way that white people can see and understand, racism’s validity may be granted (references to dynamics of racism that white people do not understand are usually rejected out of hand). However, whites are usually more receptive to validating white racism if that racism is constructed as residing in individual white people other than themselves.

At the same time that it is ubiquitous, white superiority also remains unnamed and explicitly denied by most whites. If white children become adults who explicitly oppose racism, as do many, they often organize their identity around a denial of the racially based privileges they hold that reinforce racist disadvantage for others. What is particularly problematic about this contradiction is that white moral objection to racism increases white resistance to acknowledging complicity with it. In a white supremacist context, white identity in large part rests upon a foundation of (superficial) racial toleration and acceptance. Whites who position themselves as liberal often opt to protect what they perceive as their moral reputations, rather than recognize or change their participation in systems of inequity and domination. In so responding, whites invoke the power to choose when, how, and how much to address or challenge racism. Thus, pointing out white advantage will often trigger patterns of confusion, defensiveness and righteous indignation. When confronted with a challenge to white racial codes, many white liberals use the speech of self-defense (Van Dijk, 1992). This discourse enables defenders to protect their moral character against what they perceive as accusation and attack while deflecting any recognition of culpability or need of accountability. Focusing on restoring their moral standing through these tactics, whites are able to avoid the question of white privilege (Marty, 1999, Van Dijk, 1992).

Those who lead whites in discussions of race may find the discourse of selfdefense familiar. Via this discourse, whites position themselves as victimized, slammed, blamed, attacked, and being used as “punching bag(s)” (DiAngelo, 2006c). Whites who describe interactions in this way are responding to the articulation of counter narratives; nothing physically out of the ordinary has ever occurred in any inter racial discussion that I am aware of. These self-defense claims work on multiple levels to: position the speakers as morally superior while obscuring the true power of their social locations; blame others with less social power for their discomfort; falsely position that discomfort as dangerous; and reinscribe racist imagery. This discourse of victimization also enables whites to avoid responsibility for the racial power and privilege they wield. By positioning themselves as victims of anti-racist efforts, they cannot be the beneficiaries of white privilege. Claiming that they have been treated unfairly via a challenge to their position or an expectation that they listen to the perspectives and experiences of people of color, they are able to demand that more social resources (such as time and attention) be channeled in their direction to help them cope with this mistreatment.

[Rogue 9]

You know, last I heard that phrase trotted out regularly it was when advocates were fighting hard for gay marriage and people kept pushing back with "You're hurting your cause, ask for domestic unions instead so you're not so inflammatory."

Are you actually so goddamned blind that you don't see the difference between demanding equality and proclaiming hatred and demanding death and/or the expulsion of a people from the continent?

I mean, that begs the a priori question as to why you think White people have an equal right to the continent as Native folks.

That also begs the question where anyone has made the claim that killing white people is something we ought do.

Born here. All the right I need. If you try to rip me from my home and send me somewhere else as a refugee, you're getting shot at. If that's not your intention, banging on about it serves no purpose.

For the second question:

Until then, remember this: I hate you because you shouldn’t exist.

What happens when people stop existing? They're dead. That's how people cease to exist.

[Effie]

Are you actually so goddamned blind that you don't see the difference between demanding equality and proclaiming hatred and demanding death and/or the expulsion of a people from the continent?

I mean, that begs the a priori question as to why you think White people have an equal right to the continent as Native folks.

That also begs the question where anyone has made the claim that killing white people is something we ought do.

Born here. All the right I need. If you try to rip me from my home and send me somewhere else as a refugee, you're getting shot at. If that's not your intention, banging on about it serves no purpose.

For the second question:

Until then, remember this: I hate you because you shouldn’t exist.

What happens when people stop existing? They're dead. That's how people cease to exist.

So, wait, are we going to argue that if a genocide or ethnic cleansing is successfully prosecuted that's it? We've just gotta sit back and accept it and kill anyone who attempts to undo the crime as much as possible?

[Rogue 9]

So, wait, are we going to argue that if a genocide or ethnic cleansing is successfully prosecuted that's it? We've just gotta sit back and accept it and kill anyone who attempts to undo the crime as much as possible?

Evicting white people from the continent isn't undoing any crimes; it's perpetrating more crimes. And you're damned straight that an attempt to ethnically cleanse North America would result in bloodshed. Peacefully getting on the cattle cars hasn't tended to work out too well in the past.

At this point I would tell you that I absolutely do not desire this outcome, that I work and campaign for racial equality and an end to police brutality and the mass incarceration of minorities, that I love my adopted cousins (who are black) as my own blood, etc, but you have demonstrated above that this has no effect on you. I eagerly await the wildly inaccurate psychoanalysis.

[Straha]

Born here. All the right I need.

If you try to rip me from my home and send me somewhere else as a refugee, you're getting shot at. If that's not your intention, banging on about it serves no purpose.

So were the native tribes, yet their rights were extinguished, their culture expunged, and they were forcibly removed from their land so that you could be born there. All because they weren't codified as white but your ancestors were. Now when someone says "Hey, that's fucked up, and I think that people who are beneficiaries of historically unprecedented levels of violence, ethnic cleansing, and genocide that was targeted against minorities need to be held accountable for the privileged positions they now hold." your response is "Fuck you, I have a gun."

Which, I mean, jeepers. But hey, at least you're honest about it being a position of force and not morality.

[Effie]

So, wait, are we going to argue that if a genocide or ethnic cleansing is successfully prosecuted that's it? We've just gotta sit back and accept it and kill anyone who attempts to undo the crime as much as possible?

Evicting white people from the continent isn't undoing any crimes; it's perpetrating more crimes. And you're damned straight that an attempt to ethnically cleanse North America would result in bloodshed. Peacefully getting on the cattle cars hasn't tended to work out too well in the past.

At this point I would tell you that I absolutely do not desire this outcome, that I work and campaign for racial equality and an end to police brutality and the mass incarceration of minorities, that I love my adopted cousins (who are black) as my own blood, etc, but you have demonstrated above that this has no effect on you. I eagerly await the wildly inaccurate psychoanalysis.

Well, actions speak louder than words. Saying you campaign for racial equality while also saying that any effort at restitution for genocide and expropriation on an apocalyptic scale risks you killing people is, well, there's a discontinuity there.

[Rogue 9]

Born here. All the right I need.

If you try to rip me from my home and send me somewhere else as a refugee, you're getting shot at. If that's not your intention, banging on about it serves no purpose.

So were the native tribes, yet their rights were extinguished, their culture expunged, and they were forcibly removed from their land so that you could be born there. All because they weren't codified as white but your ancestors were. Now when someone says "Hey, that's fucked up, and I think that people who are beneficiaries of historically unprecedented levels of violence, ethnic cleansing, and genocide that was targeted against minorities need to be held accountable for the privileged positions they now hold." your response is "Fuck you, I have a gun."

Which, I mean, jeepers. But hey, at least you're honest about it being a position of force and not morality.

Yes, and that was a massive injustice that I did not commit. You can't hold me accountable for shit I didn't do any more than I can undo it, which I would if it were within my power. It isn't. In the meantime, expelling me from the continent (to where, exactly?) is a massive injustice committed against me, who has no roots anywhere else and no identity other than American, which I would resist with every means at my disposal. You sound like fucking Donald Trump carrying on about Mexicans. It's surreal.

For the record, I am unequivocally against the injustices carried out against the native tribes today. My brother did his student teaching on the Many Farms reservation in Arizona (an assignment he requested) and through him I know quite a bit about it and have written my representatives several times on the matter. I heavily suspect you don't care.

So, wait, are we going to argue that if a genocide or ethnic cleansing is successfully prosecuted that's it? We've just gotta sit back and accept it and kill anyone who attempts to undo the crime as much as possible?

Evicting white people from the continent isn't undoing any crimes; it's perpetrating more crimes. And you're damned straight that an attempt to ethnically cleanse North America would result in bloodshed. Peacefully getting on the cattle cars hasn't tended to work out too well in the past.

At this point I would tell you that I absolutely do not desire this outcome, that I work and campaign for racial equality and an end to police brutality and the mass incarceration of minorities, that I love my adopted cousins (who are black) as my own blood, etc, but you have demonstrated above that this has no effect on you. I eagerly await the wildly inaccurate psychoanalysis.

Well, actions speak louder than words. Saying you campaign for racial equality while also saying that any effort at restitution for genocide and expropriation on an apocalyptic scale risks you killing people is, well, there's a discontinuity there.

You make a massive leap from "I will resist being expelled from my home" (which is true) to twist it into "I will kill people over any effort at restitution" (which is emphatically not true). See, this is your problem. You've staked out an extreme position and effectively proclaimed that anyone who is not with you is against you by characterizing any dissent from your extreme position as monstrous. Well, I hate to inform you that ethnic cleansing is what's monstrous. It was monstrous when it was done to the native tribes, and it would be just as monstrous done to anyone else.

[Rogue 9]

As for being a position of force and not morality, no. It is a position of morality that I'm willing to back with force. It would be immoral to evict the majority of the population of the United States from the country because of the color of their skin. It was immoral done to the natives (whose attempts to resist with force were 100% justified) and it would be immoral done to the current majority European-descended population.

[Effie]

Born here. All the right I need.

If you try to rip me from my home and send me somewhere else as a refugee, you're getting shot at. If that's not your intention, banging on about it serves no purpose.

So were the native tribes, yet their rights were extinguished, their culture expunged, and they were forcibly removed from their land so that you could be born there. All because they weren't codified as white but your ancestors were. Now when someone says "Hey, that's fucked up, and I think that people who are beneficiaries of historically unprecedented levels of violence, ethnic cleansing, and genocide that was targeted against minorities need to be held accountable for the privileged positions they now hold." your response is "Fuck you, I have a gun."

Which, I mean, jeepers. But hey, at least you're honest about it being a position of force and not morality.

Yes, and that was a massive injustice that I did not commit. You can't hold me accountable for shit I didn't do any more than I can undo it, which I would if it were within my power. It isn't. In the meantime, expelling me from the continent (to where, exactly?) is a massive injustice committed against me, who has no roots anywhere else and no identity other than American, which I would resist with every means at my disposal. You sound like fucking Donald Trump carrying on about Mexicans. It's surreal.

For the record, I am unequivocally against the injustices carried out against the native tribes today. My brother did his student teaching on the Many Farms reservation in Arizona (an assignment he requested) and through him I know quite a bit about it and have written my representatives several times on the matter. I heavily suspect you don't care.

Evicting white people from the continent isn't undoing any crimes; it's perpetrating more crimes. And you're damned straight that an attempt to ethnically cleanse North America would result in bloodshed. Peacefully getting on the cattle cars hasn't tended to work out too well in the past.

At this point I would tell you that I absolutely do not desire this outcome, that I work and campaign for racial equality and an end to police brutality and the mass incarceration of minorities, that I love my adopted cousins (who are black) as my own blood, etc, but you have demonstrated above that this has no effect on you. I eagerly await the wildly inaccurate psychoanalysis.

Well, actions speak louder than words. Saying you campaign for racial equality while also saying that any effort at restitution for genocide and expropriation on an apocalyptic scale risks you killing people is, well, there's a discontinuity there.

You make a massive leap from "I will resist being expelled from my home" (which is true) to twist it into "I will kill people over any effort at restitution" (which is emphatically not true). See, this is your problem. You've staked out an extreme position and effectively proclaimed that anyone who is not with you is against you by characterizing any dissent from your extreme position as monstrous. Well, I hate to inform you that ethnic cleansing is what's monstrous. It was monstrous when it was done to the native tribes, and it would be just as monstrous done to anyone else.

Nobody is endorsing ethnic cleansing, you buffoon. The fact of the matter is, when you respond to posts by insisting the person is threatening you with ethnic cleansing, the first assumption is that you believe that the content of the posts amounts to ethnic cleansing, and so when the content of the posts is "restitution for the genocides against American Indians involves rethinking how we understand our relationship to the land", well, the assumption becomes that you believe that this is a promise of ethnic cleansing, rather than that you're talking with an imaginary friend who is threatening you with ethnic cleansing and letting this filter into your posting.

[Rogue 9]

Nobody is endorsing ethnic cleansing, you buffoon. The fact of the matter is, when you respond to posts by insisting the person is threatening you with ethnic cleansing, the first assumption is that you believe that the content of the posts amounts to ethnic cleansing, and so when the content of the posts is "restitution for the genocides against American Indians involves rethinking how we understand our relationship to the land", well, the assumption becomes that you believe that this is a promise of ethnic cleansing, rather than that you're talking with an imaginary friend who is threatening you with ethnic cleansing and letting this filter into your posting.

Sure they're not.

Oh wait.

But they shouldn't. White people should not exist in North America. White people have no right to be in North America.

The fuck conclusion are we supposed to draw from that premise, then? I realize that was posted before you joined the board, but if you're going to participate in a conversation perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it first.

[Gandalf]

Best. Thread. Ever. The fact that white/White seems so confusing is fucking nuts.

I haven't been able to find a link to the article, just the retractions so if someone has one they could post I'd appreciate it.

Straha, I'm not going to pretend to be well educated enough to argue the terminology with you, but could it be said that the 'White' and 'Black' cultures you're referring to here could be more accurately described as 'American white/blackness'? I find that anecdotally, one thing I see in Australia is indigenous youth, especially in cities, beginning to associate more strongly with what I can only really describe as 'Black American' culture rather than indigenous cultures. That's really a superficial observation on my part at best, and I have no doubt that it is in no small part due to the almost complete lack of decent education about culture or history in Australia generally, but at the same time it fits a pattern across the western world and particularly the Anglosphere of 'American' culture slowly but surely drowning other regional cultures, indigenous or not.

There are certainly other people who would be better suited than I to discuss Australian Indegenous culture and the way colonization has effected it. I think there is something about the... rootlessness, perhaps, of Black culture in America that makes it appeal to listless teenagers across cultures.

Sorry for the late reply here.

While I can't speak for all Indigenous Australia, part of the appeal of American Black culture is a common identity as being under the boot of a White oppressor. Lots of the US godawful racial history has parallels here. A key difference is that while Indigenous cultural expressions were not viewed well by most, Black American cultural expressions were generally more accepted by the wider populace. So as an example; AB Original get a lot of positive attention from critics and audiences because they use a very American sounding hip hop to discuss Indigenous issues. Had they tried the same with more Indigenous sounding music, few would know of them.

[Straha]

Nobody is endorsing ethnic cleansing, you buffoon. The fact of the matter is, when you respond to posts by insisting the person is threatening you with ethnic cleansing, the first assumption is that you believe that the content of the posts amounts to ethnic cleansing, and so when the content of the posts is "restitution for the genocides against American Indians involves rethinking how we understand our relationship to the land", well, the assumption becomes that you believe that this is a promise of ethnic cleansing, rather than that you're talking with an imaginary friend who is threatening you with ethnic cleansing and letting this filter into your posting.

Sure they're not.

Oh wait.

But they shouldn't. White people should not exist in North America. White people have no right to be in North America.

The fuck conclusion are we supposed to draw from that premise, then? I realize that was posted before you joined the board, but if you're going to participate in a conversation perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it first.

Dude, you've admitted that your only relationship to the land comes from being born here. And that your ability to be born here comes from a doctrine of racial supremacy that gave you and your ancestors right to that land. If you are against racial supremacy and want to undo the injustice committed against native populations part of that process is recognizing that your 'right' to this land is part of that systemic injustice and must be given up.

That's it.

We can talk about what we do after we recognize that White People don't have a right to be here, but that first step is crucial and independent from everything else.

[Effie]

Nobody is endorsing ethnic cleansing, you buffoon. The fact of the matter is, when you respond to posts by insisting the person is threatening you with ethnic cleansing, the first assumption is that you believe that the content of the posts amounts to ethnic cleansing, and so when the content of the posts is "restitution for the genocides against American Indians involves rethinking how we understand our relationship to the land", well, the assumption becomes that you believe that this is a promise of ethnic cleansing, rather than that you're talking with an imaginary friend who is threatening you with ethnic cleansing and letting this filter into your posting.

Sure they're not.

Oh wait.

But they shouldn't. White people should not exist in North America. White people have no right to be in North America.

The fuck conclusion are we supposed to draw from that premise, then? I realize that was posted before you joined the board, but if you're going to participate in a conversation perhaps you should familiarize yourself with it first.

Well, if you jump straight from "have no right to be here" to "must be driven into the sea" that's your problem. There are two major conclusions here. One of them is that white people cannot demand that the unjust foundations of their existence in the Americas be ignored by saying they have a right to what was taken. The other one is that "white people" is a compound, and we can remove the whiteness while saving the person, and indeed this is the primary conclusion of many, many people.

[Rogue 9]

Dude, you've admitted that your only relationship to the land comes from being born here.

Yes, which is all the right I need, but coming at it from this angle raises an interesting question. What right do the natives have to the land, apart from being born here themselves? Again, I contend that being born here is all the right anyone needs to stay here, but since you argue differently, I'd like you to specify what exactly makes the difference in your eyes.

[Straha]

So much for being unequivocally against the injustices that Natives received. That was quick.

[FaxModem1]

So much for being unequivocally against the injustices that Natives received. That was quick.

If the mods find this to be dog piling, I will retract this post.

But there is a difference between being against injustices, and wanting to commit new ones in the name of 'justice'. Especially since you've made it clear that your version of Justice is forced mass deportation. How or where is not stated, but that seems irrelevant to you.

[Simon_Jester]

More bullshitting.

The question is, simply, "if being born here doesn't confer right to the land, what does?" This is logically equivalent to Rogue's formulation, and evading it seems pointless. Either being born on a patch of land is sufficient to confer a right to reside there, or it isn't. If it isn't, what is it that does confer this right?

This is not, or should not be, a hard question to answer in a clear and unambiguous way. Since you are very confident in saying "white people have no right to be in North America," you must surely already know the answer to this question. I anticipate your answer with interest; I could make one up that might even be mildly persuasive, but it wouldn't be yours and I know it wouldn't.

Best. Thread. Ever. The fact that white/White seems so confusing is fucking nuts.

It's not confusing once it's explained, and so long as it's used by people with the mental discipline to clearly delineate each statement as it is made, and refrain from defending others' flawed statements that do not thus delineate.

It becomes a problem when it's used by jackasses to equivocate between positions that sound very similar in the common usage of the English language*, under circumstances such that anyone with an IQ higher than that of a turnip knows they will be misunderstood, then act smug when they are misunderstood and tell everyone it's due to their deficient education, latent racism, fragile egos, or other personal defects.

It stays a problem when, after such a misunderstanding is identified, it is defended to the last fucking ditch, rather than just being able to say "you know, you're right that in the interests of mutual communication among humans who are willing to deal with each other in good faith we should agree to at least try to make ourselves mutually intelligible, rather than reducing everything to a Tower of Babel scenario and then shrugging and saying 'not-my-fault' when it ends in tears."
______________________

*("you have no right to be here" <-> "it would be better if you weren't here" <-> "only a lack of muscle stops us from throwing you out" come to mind, three related statements where in common speech a person might routinely say one when they mean the others).

Effie, at some point you either started bullshitting on purpose, or stopped noticing the difference between truth, flamboyant rhetoric, and unadulterated bullshit.

Enjoy twisting words and stereotyping. I hope you don't do as much more-harm-than-good as I expect you to.

Hey man, I'm not the person who decided to say that anti-racism's strength comes from white people, so I'm sitting pretty.

Still bullshitting.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Hi! It's the mod again! I see my commands are not being obeyed.

Do you want thread locks? Because this is how you get thread locks.