at least in this version we have doubleplusgood razors. i want to look good when fire and brimstone fall like rain.

When Bill Clinton pardoned his brother Roger, IIRC he basically said "yeah, he's my brother." Roger had already served his time, too, so at least he had been punished. Biden's justifications for the sweeping Hunter pardon were laughable.

I never said I hadn't heard of it. I asked the basis of your claim.

Now, let's Rich Muny this, shall we?

Hey, unless you give me relative incidence rates, arrest rates, and prosecution rates AND you show a statistically significant difference between the two states when correcting for population, numbers of stores, etc., you haven't proven anything, have you? After all, that is the Rich Muny way. And if it's not proven by the Rich Muny standard, then you can't really claim it.

So you can say that's your opinion all you want, but it isn't fact!

I have to say, the Rich Muny way makes it real easy to reject anything that I want to reject. Great system you've got there!

Well, you can add that to the list of things you're wrong about. Perhaps you've forgotten it.

Anyway, since you're having some trouble here, let me help you out.

In the book, the word 'newspeak' is newspeak, right? If you use the word 'newspeak' are you (i.e. NotThremp) using newspeak? Or are you just using a word that people who use newspeak also happen to use?

There are people out there who would say that you should never use the term "illegal aliens". I'm not one of those people. Sorry to pleasantly surprise you, I guess.

Hope that helps!

I would agree with that as well, although I think that it is true even without the caveat. With the caveat, the difference is probably larger. IIRC only 10-15% of the population is African American, so it really shouldn't be that surprising if the effect persists even if you don't apply the caveat.

maybe i'm not racist enough and need to try harder (will work on that), but i had absolutely zero inkling you were mixed from your pics

Again, you don't understand the definition of newspeak. I'm not going to engage with someone uneducated since it is by definition impossible to discuss and you're unwilling to be educated. Again, I encourage you to use get a dictionary or keep falling back on weird mental gymnastics to cope.

generally only other mixed race and black people can recognize it. Whites basically always assume latino (partially correct) and Chinese guess correctly maybe 5-10% of the time.

So I'm genuinely curious. In an effort to avoid 4chan levels of confusion about whiteness (essentially small white v big white, IE are people from the Caucuses white?), lets assume that we are talking about big white. When you see someone mocha colored do you assume he's a dagestani rebel or do you just kinda shrug and move on?

If we look to noted luminaries of antiracist theory, the first step to being less racist is to identify racism which is impossible without being able to identify one's race. (Kinda ipso facto, but it is always funny when there is misguided racism like throwing anti-Mexican slurs at someone Indian.) Obviously people like Kendi are complete buffoons, but it does raise a salient point that both antiracists and Nazis and other race first ideologues agree on, that race is the most important thing and we need to be able to identify one's race. Usually this is done by accepting someone's self-identification in most circumstances, but appears problematic for race since member's of a group can exclude someone else based on arbitrary criteria (See not actually Native American Lizzie Warren, who actually is a great bankruptcy luminary before she became a whackjob senator). In this specific example, you need to actually join the club (they call it a tribe) to identify as a Native American which obviously comes with strict racial guidelines. The Cherokee Nation requires 1/16th ancestry of listed names from a sheet of paper from 1924. Simply being of sufficient lineage doesn't mean you are Cherokee, since it requires filling out the forms as well.

https://www.doi.gov/tribes/enrollment

So if you see someone who looks Native American, is 100% Native American by lineage, and dressed up like a historical Native American, but explains they've given up their tribal membership due to it being an incredibly corrupt racket which kills people. You are obligated, under antiracist theory, to explain that they are not Native American and are appropriating another culture, otherwise you are actually a racist.

Hope this helps!

I proved it was a real issue and that it was an election issue. That was the entirety of my claims. Unlike you, I didn't expand beyond the facts at hand.

theres a concept in psychology, that the brain doesn't understand "dont" in the context of cognitive motor stuffs. dont touch the hot stove... kid reaches slowly for the stove.

so how does teaching the ins and outs of racism with a big DON'T attached produce a desirable result?

finding more ways to separate us physically and mentally is the wrong direction. bloodlines dont stay purebred for more than a generation in usa. we are the mixed race of earth.

In one of the great twists, race is entirely a social construct (like vegetables), but a necessary requirement for the existence of racism. By forcing people to identify others through this entirely arbitrary lens, as antiracist theory suggests, you're actually ingraining and exacerbating racism, since if we just stopped making arbitrary groupings we could hate people for more tangible things like having small boobs or red hair.

Nah man, I understand it just fine. Good talk, tho.

Feel free to post the definition. Or would you like to circleback to the prior argument where by pointing out race, you are ingraining race as a social concept and being a racist. That was p ****ing hilarious.

LOL Proved? Yup, when Rich Muny needs to prove something, who needs statistical significance?

Nope, sorry you didn't prove it. Do you not remember how this works? These are your rules! Unless you have polling data (from an unbiased source, of course) which shows a statistically significant difference in shop lifting perceptions in California between Trump voters and Harris voters, you can't prove anything. Proving things is hard. That's just like your opinion, man.

Moreover, as you may recall we started this argument on the topic of misinformation. So even if you found the above study showing statistical significance, we still need to know if it is true (unless you are willing to accept that they voters may have been wrong about their perceptions and that they thought it was real, when it really wasn't...based on what you've written, it's clear you don't think that). So you still need to find some studies showing statistically significant differences in shoplifting between X and Y (whatever those things happen to be).

So to recap, you would need to first, show a study that proved that shoplifting increases were real to a statistically significant extent. Then you would need to find another study that showed that these attitudes differed in voters to a statistically significant extent. Finally, you would need to show these attitudes caused them to vote differently than they otherwise would have to a statistically significant extent. You haven't come close to "proving it". Sorry, Rich. I didn't make the rules.

guys, i'm going to buy an apple tomorrow, what should i get?

Sure, bro

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

Honeycrisp or Cosmic crisp. Depends on your mood.

Former are easier to obtain and are of more reliable quality, so if in doubt, go Honeycrisp.

So you may not seem to know what a dictionary is. Let me explain.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dictionary

What you linked in an encyclopedia article. But hey, you obviously know the difference, right? I mean... the same org manages both websites.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/newspeak

But its obvious why you didn't use this:

"Use of ambiguous, misleading, or euphemistic words in order to deceive the listener, especially by politicians and officials. "

Hrm. Like using the term "undocumented" when you mean people with documents and people without. Ambiguous? Yep. Misleading? 100% Euphemistic? Obviously.

I mean you either literally don't know what a dictionary is or you are trying to hide the fact that you're engaging in absurd level of mental gymnastics to cope. I'm honestly not sure if you think you're lying. You could be that far gone. But hey, lets fall back on "To understand the context of my asinine claims, you need to read 1000s of words of nonsense" instead of making reasonable claims that are plainly understood.

But punching down on Rich is obv fun. So whatever makes you happy.

It's proven, bro. California has a shoplifting problem. Everyone here knows it. Everyone everywhere knows it.

Your claim that you proved that less intelligent people tended to vote for Trump is also wrong. You may think it. You may believe it. But you didn't prove it. It's just your opinion.

https://www.seriouseats.com/how-hone...diocre-8753117

Maybe Yugo will find this.

pink lady

Empire and Northern Spy are my favorite apples. or skip the apple go straight to the cyder.

Punching down on NotThremp is fun too. This is hilarious.

To recap

Melk: So, in the book, here's what newspeak is

Thremp: LOL you obviously haven't read the book

Melk: LOL WAT

Thremp: I invite you to cite a definition

Melk: Here is a defintion from the wikipedia page which describes the definition from the exact context of the book. You know one you're stupidly claiming I haven't read

Thremp: No not that definition. I wanted you to use a definition that makes almost no reference to the source material. You know the book that we're talking about. Yes, I want a definition that makes as little reference to that as possible. Obviously a single line definition is superior to one that considers the context of the book (you know the one we're talking about) and describes the meaning of the word in far greater detail. I am very smart!


LOL Thremp. Thanks for playing. If you'll go back to my first post on the topic I was referring to how the term was used in the book from the very beginning. You even acknowledged this. You can try reading it again. I'd ask you to consult a dictionary to help, but I'm not sure if there is one up to the task.

Even going by your definition, you're going to need to show your work on ambiguous or misleading. It's very specific. It might be misleading to an idiot, so I guess it tracks that you would find it misleading. I think everyone with a couple of brain cells knows that if you are undocumented, then (excepting some weird edge cases) you are here illegally. But please, show me the people who don't actually understand this. I won't even hold you to the LOL Rich Muny standard of proof.

Maybe, you might find some idiots like yourself out there, but since we're in this thread, do you think anyone (besides possibly you) is mislead by the term. If not, then where exactly is the misleading?

It is a precise and indisputable description. I'll give you euphemistic (but in the book, newspeak is far more than just that), but like I said I don't object to illegal alien and I don't dispute that is perfectly accurate as well. Feel free to use it as often as you like. I won't complain. If you think that's the position of a propagandist, then you might want to look that word up too.

I love it.

Rich Muny: You haven't proven that dumber people vote Trump. We're gonna need IQ tests on both groups and we need to find a statistically significant difference. Then this needs to be shown in MULTIPLE studies. And even then we can't believe it because such studies would only be done by biased libs. Sorry, you haven't proven it.

Also Rich Muny: Obviously CA has a worse shoplifting problem than Texas and it is because Texas punishes them more harshly. I don't need to show any studies or stats on incidence, prosecution rates or arrest rates. And LOL statistical significance, who needs that! Everyone knows it. Therefore it is proven.

I am Rich Muny, I "deal in facts".

Bravo!