Think, talk, repeat until you reach a conclusion.

“Americans” are not an ethnicity. Talking about the culture of a country is nothing similar to attaching innate characteristics to a person based on origin/skin color/etc.

This does not require ethnicity at all.

If someone is discriminated because of an ethnicity they don’t actually have (let’s say a Mexican being targeted as an “arab”) should they not get compensation ?

According to your logic, you need ethnicity to give compensation which means that you require victims to have a specific ethnicity to be recognised, but it is absurd. What makes victims victims is what they went through, not the reason they suffered abuse.

And this doesn’t even apply to colonization as in this case most of the times the former colony is now a country, and as such you can give compensation to the country and its citizens, no ethnicity required.

Either way, ethnicity is not needed.

I think that being a colonizer is not something a government should be. So yes, definitely, such a treaty is bad.

A government should be treating people as equally as possible. Ethnicity only brings unnecessary division.

Well, american culture making such a big deal about ethnicity even when “positive” did influence a lot.

I never understood why the N word is racist because of history, but then being black makes it fine to say. It’s still linked to a racist background, but it seems like americans consider that minorities can never be or do anything racist.

And I mean, in 99% of cases the concept of ethnicity is (or at least is used in a way that is) purely racist. Apart from a few studies on genetic specificities, it has no purpose at all, and definitely no purpose in daily lives and governments.

What’s weird is that no one with a sane mind would say that a woman saying “women are bitches and shouldn’t be able to work” isn’t misogynistic, but when it comes to racism people are making up exceptions left and right.

If you focus on ethnicity, chances are you are racist, no matter the justification you put behind it.

Just imagine someone like you talking with you. How does it work?

I can’t even imagine that it would last more than two messages. It’s not a conversation if only one person is talking.

Seeking help is definitely the way to go as others have pointed out.

If you don’t care about others feeling hurt, well then just think about it rationally: you probably don’t like getting hurt, so you can understand that they don’t either and trying not to hurt others generally makes the world easier for everyone.

Now I would also say that aside of that, you should apologize to people you hurt. Not specifically expecting them to forgive you, but because it also logically makes more sense as it might make them feel less bad about your behaviour.

I would overall try to think about things more rationally than emotionally because it does look like your emotions are your main source of problem right now, and for example thinking that hurting people is going to make them improve is absurd.

And thinking rationally would let you realize what behaviors are not okay, and let you apologize/warn people about it even if you fail to control yourself. While people would still completely be entitled to distancing themselves from you if your behaviour hurts them, it might at least give them some insight that allows them to get less hurt. And once again, less hurt is generally positive.

This quote is full of shit though.

I’m referring to the orion slaves episode (Bound), the cogenitor episode, and impulse, yes. And if people like impulse then they like a low-quality resident evil movie, not star trek.

Made me realise that I also forget to mention the episode with graphical teen incest scenes, too. And the various episodes with discrimination and sexual assault which are plenty.

So you’re enjoying pro-slavery messages and zombie-apocalypse episodes in your star treks? Huh.

The spread of AI as a valid tool to get proper data/information is a big problem and threat. So I have a problem with something that is actively making things worse, yes.

Politics are becoming more and more of the center of a lot of issues, of course it’s going to be everywhere. Just like if a comet is about to hit earth and you complain about all communities talking about it, even if unrelated.

Your stance is looking a lot like enlightened centrism at this point, and that’s definitely not a good thing.

Are you really suggesting that you expect CEOs to be competent? Scamming people and exploiting workers doesn’t require skills, except if immorality is one.

Ignoring predators, a good idea

As far as we are from the death of art I guess.

You can have beliefs. But most religions are actively anti-LGBT, so you are in a bit of a pickle here. Associating yourself with an intolerant group is going to attract hostility for people who fight intolerance. And the paradoxical situation you seem to be here leaves you on the wrong side of both sides.

If your beliefs are proper beliefs (and not weird crap from religions) no atheist can ever have an argument against that.

Removed by mod

You did, and if it wasn’t intentional then you’re the one needing a better education. Actually, this is probably so basic that it’s not usually taught.

Ah yes sorry, you said that Trump was actually less or equal of a threat for survival than Harris.

“If it was possible with A, then it is possible with B” implies that B is less restrictive than A. Which in this case means that you said that surviving Harris is more/as hard as surviving Trump.

You can’t do the “it’s not what I said, calm down bro” lie on a written conversation.

A guy who wants the death of many people and goes more and more insane/senile being put at the head of a country after multiple comments admitting that he’d like to form a dictatorship is, for you, the same as an averagely crappy politician being elected?

At Hitler’s election would you have said “heh, minorities had it hard before, but they’ll survive” too?