The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Community organiser in chief finding it hard to get by without dog in his life
Funny that you should mention King, you remind me of something else he said..
Which basically means he agrees with me standing up and pointing out racism wherever it resides, rather than allow it to go unopposed or wait for it to go away on it's own. King
(I'm having trouble understanding just why you'd think that quote was any use to your position.)
If it's racism, it's not a very dangerous kind. I don't think people voted him in out of a desire to wreak vengeance on us white folks, or because they believed he was the intellectual or moral superior of his opponents due to his greater melanin content. Mostly novelty, with a dash of "this candidate understands my experiences better/is more relatable." Neither is a particularly good reason to vote for a candidate, but it's not like either is new to our elections. Lots of people voted for W because they liked his folksy, tongue-tangled, know-nothing charm. Their parents voted in JFK for being young, handsome, and not sweating like a pig on camera. I'd like to think this is television's fault, but I'd be amazed if Jefferson promoters didn't push him as "a gentleman like unto yourselves in stature, profession and dignity," or however they said it in Old-Timey Speech. It's always been style over substance; Obama's innovation was that his style, like the Model T, came in black.
Now, if you're just going to play tug-of-war over who gets to use the word "racism," I have to say that strikes me as a thoroughly pointless argument you can never resolve. If you're going to go through with it, though, you might as well just cut to the chase and link to dictionary websites now.
Irrelevant how dangerous it is. If you're going to suggest racism is only racism if it's imminently dangerous, then you've basically said that most of the KKK and neo-Nazis in the US are not racist. Hitler is not racist either. (Though he was. Just he isn't now.)
The question was, "is it racist?" I said it is. kentonio said it's not because they are black and blacks have been oppressed so they can't be racist even if they're voting for someone based on race.
It's always been style over substance; Obama's innovation was that his style, like the Model T, came in black.
"X is bad too" ... watch out ... kentonio will be all over you for that!
Now, if you're just going to play tug-of-war over who gets to use the word "racism," I have to say that strikes me as a thoroughly pointless argument you can never resolve. If you're going to go through with it, though, you might as well just cut to the chase and link to dictionary websites now.
I'm not playing tug of war. kentonio is playing it with a dictionary. I used the term in a valid way, kentonio says I can't use the term that way. He is trying to narrowly define it so his initial statements don't seem so stupid. I have not tried to say that "racism" cannot be used to apply to a system of racial oppression or beliefs in racial superiority. Simply pointing out that it's also valid to use it and "racist" to apply to making evaluations based on race rather than qualifications.
I'm glad you can see it's pointless of him to try to limit the meaning of words to things they are not limited to. I'm just very puzzled why you feel the need to try to take his side in a situation where he is clearly the one doing the things you think are pointless, whereas you don't seem to be able to find fault with anything I have said.
I didn't say "imminent" danger. The racism (if you want to call it that) that moved people to vote Obama does not appear to be dangerous in any respect. At worst, it was partially rooted in class antagonism, but that's basically true for all candidates from both major parties. Fear of the poor? Hate of the rich? Old news. Now we have a third flavor, is all.
I didn't say "imminent" danger. The racism (if you want to call it that) that moved people to vote Obama does not appear to be dangerous in any respect.
I was being kind by giving you a qualification that made your statements more correct.
Of course it's dangerous any time people are operating on racist tendencies. It's dangerous to accept those motivations as "ok". It took a lot of sacrifice and hard work by great people to finally get us on the path of limiting race's impact on how people are judged ... and we shouldn't just sit by and accept it when people start moving in the other direction. That's how trends generally change. Not all at once, but little by little.
"... where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" was a great message that helped change our world dramatically for the better. "Yah, it's ok to vote for for someone just because of their race" ... is a dangerous message to send to our children. Hopefully one that's not ever accepted as something you can say out loud without being lambasted for it.
Which basically means he agrees with me standing up and pointing out racism wherever it resides, rather than allow it to go unopposed or wait for it to go away on it's own. King
Ah so we've moved on from changing words to mean whatever suits you at the time, and now you're doing the same with famous quotes. Keep it up.
Ah so we've moved on from changing words to mean whatever suits you at the time, and now you're doing the same with famous quotes. Keep it up.
You still haven't tried to explain what you thought it meant, so I don't know what your part of "we" is doing. I suppose it could be that.
For my part, I was using it as obviously was meant. King was saying that he didn't like how people were telling him to wait to challenge racial discrimination, to give society time to adapt more "naturally". He was noting the fact that that discrimination was still allowed to exist not just because there were racists, but because so many of the people who weren't racists and actually identified with the cause of Civil Rights weren't willing to help do away with racism or were apologists for racism.
You are an apologist for a certain type of racism.
This is true, I do have an annoying habit of expecting people to use words for things they actually mean.
It's good you can admit you are at odds with the dictionary. I doubt you will win that one since what you are trying to claim isn't a use of the term is widely accepted as a use of the term ... but I admire the spunk you are displaying to try to take on the rest of the English speaking world to redact progress.
I am however disappointed in your hypocrisy, in that you aren't (or at least not entirely) communicating in grunts and gestures as language was likely originally conceived.
You still haven't tried to explain what you thought it meant, so I don't know what your part of "we" is doing. I suppose it could be that.
What I thought it meant? Do you really have trouble understanding basic English, because I don't see how King could have been much more clear. Perhaps you should go back to school and achieve a basic level of literacy before you continue this tiresome nonsense.
For my part, I was using it as obviously was meant. King was saying that he didn't like how people were telling him to wait to challenge racial discrimination, to give society time to adapt more "naturally". He was noting the fact that that discrimination was still allowed to exist not just because there were racists, but because so many of the people who weren't racists and actually identified with the cause of Civil Rights weren't willing to help do away with racism or were apologists for racism.
Close but slightly simplistic. It wasn't that the people 'weren't willing to help do away with racism or were apologists for racism' but rather that they were unable to fully comprehend the experience of being a black person suffering under that oppression and as such leaned towards solutions that seemed logical and most beneficial if you weren't one of the people actually doing the suffering. In doing so they held back civil rights because they gave the real apologists and supporters of slavery a legitimacy in opposing civil rights, providing them with an excuse to hold back progress. They were difficult to counter because they genuinely thought they were allies not enemies of American blacks, but their 'support' was often more of a hindrance than a help.
The reason this is appropriate to you, is that you are basically doing the same damn thing. With your lofty talk about all race based preferential behavior being unacceptable racism, you achieve nothing other than to help prevent racial equality. Black and white are not equal in America, and the idea that they would be just 50 years after civil rights is laughable. Maybe you're happy with the idea of black Americans continuing to be economically and socially downtrodden for another century until some form of natural realignment takes place, but then again you're not black.
It's good you can admit you are at odds with the dictionary. I doubt you will win that one since what you are trying to claim isn't a use of the term is widely accepted as a use of the term ... but I admire the spunk you are displaying to try to take on the rest of the English speaking world to redact progress.
Are you a Kenobi DL? Seriously, if you want to argue definitions then provide some definitions that actually support what you're trying to say. Pretending people admitted things they didn't however just makes you look like a liar and a fool.
Wilberforce was not a super hero, and in fact did not 'shut down the slave trade'.
Yes, he did. That's what the facts actually show. Sure, he wasn't a super hero, I never claimed anything of the sort. But his bill did pass, and his bill did lead to the abolition of both the slave trade in the entire Empire. He was the chief lobbyist and pushed for a bill for many years until he succeeded.
His biggest argument was that black men and women are equally persons and thus the Common Law extends to them fully as it would any other person within the Empire. His argument eventually prevailed, and we are here today. Did some white people oppose him? Absolutely. Is it to the credit of Wilberforce, that he was able to correctly perceive the true nature of black folks? Yes, yes, it is. And we should recognize him for his accomplishments.
Every black man and woman in America and elsewhere in the English speaking world owes Wilberforce a debt.
You are correct that slavery has never been a purely white on black pastime
It never was purely white on black. Not even during the height of the Triangle Trade. Where do you think the white folks got the slaves from? Did the African tribe that they traded with sell their own tribe into slavery, or did they enslave another black tribe and sell them into slavery. That - is my point here. Treating slavery as a white bad, black good, is misleading, simplistic and flat out wrong. Most white people never owned a slave. Far more white people were indentured servants to other white people than slave owners of black men and women. Should we not instead recognize what the servants and slaves had in common which was the vast majority of people, white and black?
whites were the ones doing it right up until the 19th century and in simply vast numbers
One, again, it was never simply white on black.
Two, the Barbary pirates existed in the 19th century and they engaged in slavery.
Three, White folks ended the slave trade in the 19th century. Shouldn't they get credit for it?
You can probably also extend that to all the other things you're offensively wrong about too.
It's not me who's wrong here, Kentonio.
Then again, being that you're a fundamentalist Catholic, it's understandable that you don't really have a problem with the enslavement of other races.
I'm arguing that all slavery was wrong, white to blacks, black to white, white to white and black to black.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
Last edited by Ben Kenobi; August 19, 2013, 10:55.
Scouse Git (2)La Fayette Adam SmithSolomwi and Loinburger will not be forgotten.
"Remember the night we broke the windows in this old house? This is what I wished for..."
2015 APOLYTON FANTASY FOOTBALL CHAMPION!
You seem to think it supports your case. When in reality it damns you as part of the problem for apologizing for racists. I just wanted you to explicitly state what your misunderstanding was.
It wasn't that the people 'weren't willing to help do away with racism or were apologists for racism' but rather that they were unable to fully comprehend the experience of being a black person suffering under that oppression and as such leaned towards solutions that seemed logical and most beneficial if you weren't one of the people actually doing the suffering. In doing so they held back civil rights because they gave the real apologists and supporters of slavery a legitimacy in opposing civil rights, providing them with an excuse to hold back progress. They were difficult to counter because they genuinely thought they were allies not enemies of American blacks, but their 'support' was often more of a hindrance than a help.
No. They leaned towards solutions that were easy and convenient. It wasn't that King wanted them to empathize more with the plight of blacks. He wanted them to get off their asses and do what they knew was right.
Empathizing more with the plight of blacks may have helped in that regard in some cases, but isn't a necessary condition in all (or even most). It's assured that there were many who already empathized completely with blacks and still advised patience rather than actions. It's also assured (as it happened) that many of the people you claim couldn't understand still marched with King and essentially all of them were eventually won over to the cause.
This is very clear if you know the story ... there were even blacks in the movement who also were advising such things (mainly out of fear for King's life) and King wouldn't hear it from them either.
Pretending it's just because whites couldn't understand how things were for blacks is racist on your part.
The reason this is appropriate to you, is that you are basically doing the same damn thing.
No. I am not telling anyone to wait to oppose racism. I am calling you out on your own racist statements and for being an apologist for racist actions.
With your lofty talk about all race based preferential behavior being unacceptable racism, you achieve nothing other than to help prevent racial equality.
I achieve something very important. I eliminate racism from my own actions and the actions I will accept from others.
Voting for someone because they are black doesn't help achieve racial equality ... it undermines it. Pretending otherwise also undermines it.
Black and white are not equal in America, and the idea that they would be just 50 years after civil rights is laughable. Maybe you're happy with the idea of black Americans continuing to be economically and socially downtrodden for another century until some form of natural realignment takes place, but then again you're not black.
Blacks won't be treated equal to whites until the last vestiges of racism are stamped out on both sides. You aren't helping by harboring it in yourself or being an apologist for it in others.
Are you a Kenobi DL? Seriously, if you want to argue definitions then provide some definitions that actually support what you're trying to say.
The definition you gave already supports what I'm saying. You just think it should be more narrowly defined than it actually is. You do this because you want to distract from the real issue. That issue is whether or not it is good/bad for people to vote based on race. You think by changing the acceptable definition of "racist" and "racism" you can obfuscate that issue and somehow make it ok for people to vote based on race.
You do so because you're an apologist for racism. Change "racism" to whatever you want ... the underlying meaning is that you think it is acceptable for people to vote based on race. At least as long as they're the right race. That is a disgusting mode of thought.
Pretending people admitted things they didn't however just makes you look like a liar and a fool.
I said you were in a tug of war with a dictionary. You said, "This is true ... " in response. The reasonable way to read that exchange is that you are admitting to being in a tug of war with a dictionary. The reasonable way to read that, is that you are on one side, and the dictionary is on the other. Because you can't have a tug of war if you're both on the same side.
I must have missed this in the page turn ... OMG this is good!
Your new argument is:
a) a different argument than what I was responding to
b) an even stupider argument that relies upon a sample size of one
c) even more racist
You have a black friend. I get it. Congrats. The fact that you apply a derogatory stereotype derived from that personal interaction onto an entire race certainly wouldn't suggest that you are racist ... no ... definitely not!
You sooooo miss the point.
But feel as you will. Talking out of you ass and convincing yourself you are brilliant. Seems to happen in every debate you have. Done with you.
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
Pretending it's just because whites couldn't understand how things were for blacks is racist on your part.
Serious question: Are you actually retarded? I can only assume this is the case, because otherwise you wouldn't have said something quite so mind-numbingly moronic. How exactly do you think any white person in pre-civil rights America could properly comprehend the experience of being a black American living under those conditions? You've now basically extended your version of 'racist' to mean anyone who thinks that blacks and whites could under any circumstances have different life experiences. Which is pretty goddamn stupid even for you.
You think by changing the acceptable definition of "racist" and "racism" you can obfuscate that issue and somehow make it ok for people to vote based on race.
Yes, using the word strictly by it's dictionary definition must mean I'm 'changing' it.
Tweet
Comment