Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

ShadowSJG

User
  • Posts

    234
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ShadowSJG

  1. New special before the end of the year; https://www.instagram.com/p/Bn7LIK_FP5X/?hl=en&taken-by=equestriagirlsnews2018
  2. I saw this video here: Which says there is a new EQG special like in fall or netflix before the end of the year. Thoughts on this?
  3. What,you mean like how the show does it? Could I have some examples?
  4. So for a story I'm writing, I have around 14 main characters(it's a crossover). I was wondering, how can I deal with having this many protagonists, like make sure they all get enough attention, proper character interaction, etc. It's written in the style of an episodic series for reference
  5. I've seen people say this for a bit and was wondering, is this true or not?
  6. I hear people say we are only getting two this year. Why do you say there is another one?
  7. I hear IMDB says the EQG special is due 2019 or something. Is that an official release date for it something, since IMDB said so?
  8. Who says spring and why? Also, doesn't hasbro guide for 2018 list two specials done, which are forgotten and rollercoaster friendship? Does 2019 seem likely?
  9. I posted a thread a while back here and the responses to me....were on the negative side. So I wanted to know, is it fair to say most bronies are right wing or on the conservative side?
  10. To be clear, I was referring to domestic terrorist attacks. By that logic, do you think right wingers should be screened in the U.S? I know you'll say no. Also, this is important: In the end, we found evidence that generally supports the first part of de León’s claim -- that radical right wing terrorism is on the rise. Still, there’s a lack of agreement among experts and even within the U.S. government over how to define terrorism. As a result, some studies show political violence is on the rise among far right wing groups, but do not explicitly call all of these crimes terrorist attacks. The second part of de León’s statement, comparing terror attacks by ideology, is also complicated. What’s clear is that far right groups have been tied to more terror incidents, often to deadly attacks or property damage. Meanwhile, Islamic jihadist inspired groups, while responsible for fewer terror attacks, have killed far more people on U.S. soil in recent decades. The report Booker cited found that from 12 September 2001 to the end of 2016, there were 85 deadly attacks in the US by violent extremists, resulting in a total of 225 deaths. Of those deaths, 106 people were killed by far-right extremists, in 62 separate attacks, while 119 people were killed by Islamist extremists, in 23 separate incidents. So while the majority (73%) of the attacks were carried out by far-right extremists, more people were killed by Islamist terrorists. However, as Politifact’s Amy Sherman points out, Booker used the term “white nationalists”, which is “not exactly the same thing” as far-right extremist groups. The latter “are motivated by ideologies seeking an idealised future favouring a particular group”, says Sherman. “They include white supremacists and anti-government militias, among others.” According to the GAO report, almost half the 85 attacks were committed by white supremacists. But that “number could rise if we counted additional perpetrators who sympathised with white supremacist ideals but were not labelled as white supremacists by the GAO”, Sherman says. Booker’s spokesperson explained the discrepancy in figures by arguing that although the report did not identify some of the perpetrators as white supremacists, other sources such as news accounts or court records showed they held white supremacist or racist views. A deadly difference Separate research carried out by the University of Maryland’sNational Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism reveals a slightly different picture. It found that, during the same period as that cited by Booker, Islamist extremists carried out 31 attacks, leading to 119 deaths, while far-right extremists were responsible for killing 158 people, in 89 separate attacks. So while both sources agree that far-right extremist attacks are far more common, they differ on the total number of deaths they have caused. Whether Muslim or far-right extremists have killed more Americans “depends on how you measure such incidents and which source you use”, says Politico. “Sorting through attacks and placing them in the categories of terrorism, violent extremism or hate crimes can sometimes be extremely complicated.” Who is right? The evidence suggests that far-right groups are responsible for a higher number of attacks than Islamists extremists, but not necessarily more deaths. It was misleading of Senator Booker to imply that white nationalist groups were behind the majority of attacks, as the figures he cited applied to far-right extremists as a whole.
  11. The "seven countries" targeted by President Trump's 27 January 2017 executive order pertaining to immigration were not mentioned by name and instead originated with "countr[ies] or area of concern" first identified in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (expanded to all seven countries "of concern" in February 2016). However, The 2015 bill was attached as a rider to a "must pass" omnibus spending bill and did not create an outright ban on entry into the U.S. from designated countries. On 27 January 2017 President Donald Trump issued an unnumbered Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” widely described as a “Muslim ban” targeting travelers to the U.S. from seven specific Muslim-majority countries. The order prompted controversy and protests across the United States amid widespread confusion about its contents and the manner in which it might be enforced. An article by Seth J. Frantzman asserted countries affected by the order were not selected by President Trump and were in fact pinpointed as areas of concern in late 2015, during the administration of President Barack Obama: Frantzman was correct (as was Mic.) about the absence of the names of seven countries from President Trump’s order: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen were not specifically cited in President Trump’s 27 January 2017 Executive Order, which held: President Trump’s order appeared to have roots in the “Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015,” the passage of which was reported in late 2015 and early 2016 as a response to shootings and terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris in November 2015. Although President Obama did in fact sign the bill into law in December 2015, it was attached as a rider on the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, an omnibus spending bill: H.R. 158 did not actually block travel or immigration by residents or citizens of any particular countries; rather, it terminated travel privileges afforded persons previously covered under the Visa Waiver Program, as described in a letter sent by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to members of Congress objecting to the bill: An article about the bill from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) also noted that it didn’t bar entry to the U.S. by persons traveling from certain areas of concern; it merely changed the process by which they must apply for visas: On 18 February 2016 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identified three additional countries (bringing the total to seven) that would also be covered by the limitations on Visa Waiver Program travel: As of November 2016 (before President Trump’s 20 January 2017 inauguration), a U.S. Customs & Border Protection FAQ page affirmed that travel restrictions remained in place for those specific seven countries but also noted that those “restrictions do not bar travel to the United States”: President Trump’s 27 January 2017 executive order mentioned only Syria by name; the six other countries associated with it were ones that had been identified by DHS as “of concern” as early as December 2015. Don't know why my stuff is crossed out but you can read it still.
  12. I am aware. I included this as Islamophobia and racism are linked. Second, Muslim majority countries. Considering Trump has a history of Islamophobia(retweeting right wing issues on them.) Also, the ban has been criticized as many terrorists aren't even from these countries. The order suspends entry into the U.S. from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days. But critics have argued that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates were not included, even though a report from the Cato Institute showed that the three countries were the point of origin for people responsible for 94.1 percent of American deaths due to terrorist attacks in the U.S. Eighteen of the 19 people responsible for the 11 September 2001 attacks also hailed from those three countries. Lol, 'critical thinking and 'common sense'. 'Facts don't care about feelings' I'm sure if I bring up data/statistics which show how right wing white supremacist are a bigger terrorist threat and on the rise, you'll deny it or something.
  13. I'd like to add to that reverse-racism point; Is there a history of centuries of bad science devoted to 'proving' your intellectual inferiority? Are there is massive effort at the state and local level to disenfranchise you guys of the right to vote? Is there is a travel ban on you because of your religion? Is there a danger for for you when you guys carry dangerous weaponry publicly? Were your churches burned? Were your lawns decorated with burning crosses? Were your ancestors hung from trees on a massive scale? Did your grandparents have to march in the streets facing threats of police violence, and death, demanding civil rights? Were your grandparents forced to sit on the back of buses? Were there segregated areas of low quality for them? Could interacting with the wrong person get you grandparents murdered?(I.E Emmit Till) Are you guys more likely based on the colour of your skin to get killed by a police officer when you haven't commited a crime? Are you guys pulled over, and searched simply for the colour of your skin? Are there statues glorifying those who represent the slavery, rape, and discrimination of your people? Are there groups today calling for your guys to be "ethnically cleansed" and go back home to where you're from? Did your ancestors face years of rape, forced enslavements, brutal beatings, and death simply because of what they looked like? Are there holidays which celebrate those who wiped out your ancestors, stole their land, and enslaved them?
  14. I'd also like to say this: It's not about past crimes, it's about the effects of those crimes and how they shape society today. And it's not about how individuals or individual companies or whatever treat minorities. Racism isn't just individuals' attitudes and actions, and it can't be reduced to easily identifiable instances of explicit discrimination; it's about systems. And I don't accept the definition of systematic as universal, something done without exception; it's about the overall effects of multiple institutions, norms, practices, and so on. And it's not about calling all white people racists, etc. It's about people who benefit from systemic privilege taking some responsibility for that system. Yes, I'm standing by that the oppressed should be able to define what racism/sexism is. For example, in this thread, we have people like Harper claiming systematic racism doesn't exist yet figures such as Shaun King and Colin Kaepernick would beg to differ.
  15. Can you please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said all straight/white males are racist/sexist and blame them nor did I ever judge people on their color. The thing is, issues like colonialism are still having an effect on the present. Neocolonialism for example. Also, look up Apartheid in South Africa, Congo free state aftermath and what the French did to Guinea Bisseau. As for systematic, here: https://www.vox.com/2015/4/23/8482799/systemic-racism-explained-examples
  16. On the side of racism being overlooked. At Everfree, the following person who has said this stuff was there(advocating for genocide) https://twitter.com/GamebatThePony/status/872474296576131072 … … … … … https://twitter.com/GamebatThePony/status/871979728999034880 … … … … … https://twitter.com/GamebatThePony/status/871193632593788928 … … … … … And when I informed someone about this, they said this kind of person needs cons the most and one should not shun them. Instead, be a 'friend' and just live with their differences while another said they won't say anything on this matter because this person was nice to them. Racism/advocating for genocide are not simple differences when they intend to harm others.
  17. Ok, here are my responses: I think the first problem in responding to views like these isn't about racism (sexism, homophobia, etc.), it's about their way of thinking about people and society. It's not enough to talk about judging people based on merit without considering how merit gets defined and formed. It's just a terribly simplistic, superficial, ahistorical way of understanding society. Societies are complicated. So the first thing is to ask whether history matters for the present. Do we really have the same life outcomes and choices if my grandparents were millionaires and yours were poor immigrants? Does the fact that black people, for example, aren't as overtly oppressed as they were in the 50s mean that every single one of the attitudes and institutions that oppressed them have disappeared? Or that other, maybe more subtle, forms of oppression can't exist today? History matters and institutions (including things like social norms, laws and property rights, etc.) persist. If they can't accept that and apply it to their understanding of racism, I think the conversation is over. Racism isn't limited to racial hatred; that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's about society being organized in ways that benefit/harm certain groups. There are social structures that aren't the result of any individual's decisions, and they can be perpetuated out of habit or unconscious beliefs. So for most people who say racism is still a problem, it's not about saying "all black people are X, all white people are Y." It's not about individual characteristics, it's about how different groups fit into society. (And different groups/identities overlap and interact in complex ways. One person can be privileged in certain ways and oppressed in others.) A disadvantaged group's place in society is determined in part by the resources available to them, the social structures they have to fit into, the social networks available to them--again, their historical circumstances. It is up to individuals to say what the concrete, personal experience of those social elements feels like. Would the person you're responding to say that we should consider the slave owner's perspective alongside that of the slave? Slave owners thought racial slavery was perfectly normal and natural; they didn't see it as an abomination. We don't have (institutionalized, socially acceptable) slavery today, but couldn't there be other injustices going on that we don't see as unjust, or don't even see? The person who experiences a thing gets to decide what that thing feels like. If someone else denies that thing even exists, despite a mountain of evidence and testimony, then we're just at an impasse. If the person you're responding to feels her gender has never negatively impacted her experiences or opportunities, if she can shrug off a slur yelled at her on the street, then good for her. But what about all of the documented cases in which gender does affect behavioral expectations, career opportunities, etc.? And what if that slur--not just an insult but something reflecting violence and hatred, like "fag," as she said--was yelled at her every day throughout her life? Discussions of racism, etc., call for some empathy--not in the sense of feeling sorry for someone or something, but of being able to put yourself in their shoes. If someone can't imagine someone else's experience at least a little bit, can't at least suppose their experiences are legitimate, then again, there's nothing else to say there. Edit: re: slurs. Maybe you can just dismiss slurs and just say that someone who shouts one at you is an asshole, and leave it at that. But what if those slurs are pretty much exclusively used by members of group A against members of group B? And imagine how many B people have heard that word shouted at them as they are being attacked, beaten, killed by A people. Wouldn't that make that word especially powerful for B people? And wouldn't B people be justified in saying that A people have some responsibility for that, even if not every individual A person would necessarily use that word? And also this: Let me stop you right there. The assumption that victims having the power to protect themselves/redress their grievances would be "dangerous" kind of gives away the game. Dangerous for whom? The people that benefit from systemic oppression and inequality? Why is it not "dangerous" for there to be systemic oppression in the first place? And that is why there are always people like you who insist that isolated examples of people appearing to be unaffected by systemic oppression are somehow proof that said oppression does not exist. What you're saying here demonstrates a basic inability to reckon with the "systemic" part of the equation. You're the problem because there is no way to assert that without ignoring the amply documented history of/and ongoing injustice in society. If "reverse racism" were the real problem, why do we see ongoing statistical disparities between white/black people in incarceration, poverty, mortality, average lifespan etc . . . either society is unfairly discriminating against those populations or those populations are inherently inferior. Either you blame the overall society (are an anti-racist) or you blame the individuals (in which case racial disparities are the result of racial inferiority). Given the recent history of blatant discrimination, and persisting patterns of discrimination (red-lining, employment discrimination etc . .) clinging to the idea that its black people's (or women's) fault is dense and basically racist/misogynist. Yes why should the people that have historically and continually suffer from these injustices get to define them. What is this implying? That the oppressor should get to control the narrative? Alright you should just stop right here I mean come on, this almost feels like bait Wtf is this even saying? That the accusation of racism/sexism destroys all conversation? because thats bullshit if anything it propels it. The intellectual dark web and the alt right get media coverage non stop. If someone is called racist/sexist pretty much everyone discusses what they said.
  18. The only countries I see are Saudi and Iran and women were not severely punished. Some were arrested or others threatened. Only two countries by the way(one which follows a more extreme version of Islam but that's another topic). How much of the Middle East do you actually know? You're attitude is very similar to that of Orientalism, which is dangerous but again, another topic. America was founded on racism. To deny it is plaguing our culture is overlooking history.
  19. Before I leave, I'll say this: Systematic racism, sexual harrassement and police brutality shootings would like to have a word with you. https://mic.com/articles/140882/what-is-reverse-racism-here-s-why-it-doesn-t-actually-exist-in-the-united-states https://hellogiggles.com/news/racism-against-white-people-doesnt-exist-in-america-and-heres-why-it-never-will/ Also, dissappointed to see you say this. Again, this thread confirms my fears.
  20. I'll have better responses later. Gonna rest for a bit. Also you didn't really refute anything.
×
×
  • Create New...