Mitch McConnell's Stolen Supreme Court Seat Is Already Fucking Up America

If you want to use the broadest definition every insult is a slur. That is meaningless. The claim was that it was some how a "racial slur", as you no doubt know, and that claim was simply false as the definitions make clear. I was banned for a month based upon a false claim and the admin (Malarky) was to lazy, hasty, or dishonest to even seek the facts and, yeah, that kind of does reflect badly upon him.

Chad's own definitions proved that.

You are a white male evangelical in the heart of a place where people like you dominate every position of power for a thousand miles (or ever how far it is to Chicago) in every direction. The whole culture is designed to empower people like you.

The whole culture is designed to repress people like me. If I did not have people dependent on me that I felt morally responsible to, I'd have given up long ago. I know trans people who lost their spouse, their kids, their career, their home, their social standing - and all they have is some shitty little subsistence existence (let alone getting proper medical care for the transition actions necessary to relieve the dysphoria in the first place) and they struggle EVERY day to justify making it through the day without eating a bullet. Far too often, they fail to find a reason.

That's just the adults. Try imagining making a confession to everyone you love and watch each of them in turn reject you, call you deluded, or perverted, or an abomination to God and see how you hold up.

Now imagine the same thing only this time you're just a kid.

You DO have SOME empathy...don't you?

Ok, story time.

I work retail.
A couple months ago, I'm closing cashier, the store's about to close, and the lines are fairly long. Since I was the fastest cashier, I don't really give a fuck, because the line's moving fast.
This old Russian lady comes through, I ring up her groceries and apparel, but she doesn't trust the computer's math, especially with the clearance. Thing is, she doesn't speak English. She speaks Russian... and Spanish.
My Russian is limited to only greeting and farewell, and my Spanish is marginally better than that; I speak English and French. We have a bit of an impasse.
Now, what I do understand is that she's not sure how the computer's coming up with the numbers it is, so my approach is to show her the math with pen and paper.
What's the point of all this, you ask? Well, the customer behind her was a 50-60 year old crotchety man, who demanded to know why we didn't have any more checklanes open. I've dealt with this guy before, he's an asshole. He then proves himself to be, if not a racist asshole, certainly a prejudiced asshole, because after I told him it'd be just a moment while I helped the old Russian lady, he tries to shoo her. Shocked, she says something to him, in Russian, naturally. He then mocked her, making ape like noises.
"Sir," I said, "that's not appropriate." I called up my PIC, but as I was focused on helping my Russian customer, who was, while frustrated with Asshole behind her, now satisfied with my math, I didn't really have a chance to explain what had happened to my PIC.
My PIC left to go watch the doors so no new customers would try to wander in. The Russian lady left, thanking me and mouthing off to Asshole.
At this point, as I'm turning to ring up Asshole's order, Asshole said, "I'm not leaving until you apologize."
He wanted me to apologize for calling him out in defense of another customer. Instead, after a bit of an exchange, I flat out refused him service.
I made a point to talk to the store director, and my boss the next day, and they had my back. He wasn't the last customer I flat out refused service to, and again, my PIC, boss, and store director had my back.

So, @Dinner, am I to understand that you want me to apologize for your failure to comprehend the English language, for deliberately being obtuse as to what the definitions as quoted by @Chad were, for claiming that I made a hasty error? Whether or not the term 'wetback' applies only to illegal aliens and not to Mexicans in general is wholly immaterial; racists don't give a fuck whether Mexicans who entered the US legally aren't part of the definition. They see a Mexican, they make a prejudgment, therefore, they're illegal. You call a Mexican, or any Latino a wetback, at best, they're going to look at you like you're an asshole.
You have a demonstrated inability to understand the connotation of the word, and how it'd affect not just the target of the term, but how it affects that ethnic group as a whole. You deliberately ignore the specific words within the definition that flag the word as a slur to suit it for your own whims.

The majority of the active board membership has been noting your prejudices for a while, yet you claim it's not you. No, when multiple people call you out, it's most certainly you.

You want me to apologize? Get fucked.

No, again you are lying. The original statement, to quote it, was "the restaurant industry relies heavily on wetbacks". That is to say there are a lot, a majority even in places like Southern California, of illegals illegally working in that industry. This is clarified over and over by many, many studies. It is not based upon "that person looks hispanic", that is just your ignorance and a lie you are telling in an attempt to justify your unjustifiable actions.

You wrongly claimed pointing out the restaurant industry in Southern California relies heavily upon undocumented migrants is some how "racist" or that it is a "racist slur" to point out the fact that illegals widely illegally work there. It is not. You wrong.

Let that sink in, you were wrong. You made a claim that was untrue then you banned me based upon your false and untrue claim. Yes, that was an error on your part and, yes, I do think it would be nice if you would admit your error and try not to repeat it again in the future.

This is actually your original statement:

You are delusional. You truly believe you're in the right on this one, and it just demonstrates how far down the racist rabbit hole you've traveled. I pity you. I pity your need to stand upon and stomp on people of other races just so you can have some sense of self, so that you're secure in your being, and it is embarrassing to watch you behave like this, and that's not a joke.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...s-in-one-city-last-year-it-actually-happened/

Even on the east coast illegals make up 15% to 20% of restaurant workers while in places like L.A. it is often the majority.


http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-construction-trump/

Yes, this causes pay and benefits to go down for workers as labor markets get flooded by workers who are willing to work for less. This does have some benefits, companies make more profits, sometimes prices are lower than they otherwise would be, but over all it is bad for legal workers.

You can keep lying and pretending this has anything to do with race, but you are wrong, it is anger at rules being broken, citizens wages going down, and companies competing unfairly by breaking the law.

Why are you angry at the people looking for work to feed their kids, and not the people manipulating them to exploit their desperation?

Colima's has been raided several times over the years because they do only hire illegals. They will be closed for a day or two, fines are paid, then they reopen with more illegals.

I believe my previous post explained that. They do not have a right to be here, their working harms legal workers, the companies that break the law to hire them put law abiding companies at an unfair disadvantage, and some of us actually care about playing by the rules instead of cheating and breaking the law.

Ok, so the definitions are on my side yet I am the delusional one? What a load of nonsense.

Raise wages and improve working conditions and they will find willing workers. That is how it works in other 1st world countries.

Anyway, thanks for making my point that I was absolutely correct about that industry relying heavily on illegal alien off the books labor. According to Malarky's original statement when he wrongly banned me simply pointing out that truth was some how "racist". It is not.

The definitions even established that the term "wetback" was not based upon race, as Malarky wrongfully claimed, but is based upon being an illegal alien. So where exactly does he have a leg to stand on with his ban? If he says he doesn't care about the rules or justifying his actions then fair enough but don't pretend what he did was justified due to the reasons he claimed at the time because clearly they are not.

Then what will happen to the (your words) "amazingly inexpensive specials"?

Agreed. I said it happens sometimes.

Now, let us not get distracted from the main question here. The claim was that I some how used a "racist slur" yet the definitions clearly show that was not true. The whole point of the post was even proven true.

So, please tell me again how the ban was justified? Or failing that just say you don't care about pretending to be treating posters equally wrt bans or you don't care that the stated reason for the ban was untrue. All of those would be fair enough. If you and the other mods do care about at least appearing to be applying the rules equally then it would be nice if Malarky admitted his stated reason for my ban was untrue.

Their work harms no one. Rather, the company exploiting them uses their desperation to make obscene profits, and if the workers complain, they just get deported. You're angry at the wrong people.

No one's buying it, Dinner. You can talk about strained definitions all you want, but you're not getting that camel through the needle's eye no matter how much you wriggle, or try to change its shape.

That statement ("their work harms no one") has already been empirically proven to be untrue. I posted a link to prove it but as usual you never bother to read it and facts bounce right off of you.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-construction-trump/

There it is again so you can learn about how legal workers are harmed right in their bottom line.

You're not getting it. Their working harms no one. The corporations who use them, however, do harm people, because they're exploiting those workers. Yet you are getting angry at the people just trying to work so they can have a roof over their heads and to feed their families. You're blaming them, when they are not at fault.

It's not too late.

Okay? And?

Fact is that you used a racial slur. Had you said illegal you'd be fine.

However, you intentionally used that word. You knew what you're doing. Stop being an idiot.

The definitions just established it was not a racial slur! It is a "slur" (simply meaning insult or pejorative and we don't ban people for insults in the red room) based upon immigration status not race.

So we have a nonrace based pejorative wrongfully being declared race based according to the vary definition the other side provided. Fact.

I'll ask you again--can you use the slur against an undocumented immigrant from any race, ethnicity, or nationality? Or is it only used against those of Mexican/Latino heritage?

Also, is it something you'd say to their face?

"The American dream", is only for whites.
If any other color tries for it, people like Dinner act like the sick kid licked their lollipop.

It would specifically mean any illegal alien who swam to get here illegally so I suppose it could rightly be applied to any Russians swimming the Bering straight though that isn't really a problem. Occasionally, I guess the Florida straight gets swam. That is three different "races" (white, mestizo, and mixed white Afro-Carribean).

The fact is it is not racially based. It is based upon status. I suppose if you insist we can use the old without papers (WOP) but really this is just you refusing to admit you were wrong. Your own definitions proved that, Chad.

You're grasping at straws. Has the slur EVER been used against ANYONE not of Mexican/Latino heritage? Or are you going to start calling Russians by the slur as well? Do you think that the Mexican restaurant you mentioned hires Russians when you used the slur?

My own definitions specified it was used against Mexican/Latino immigrants. It's a racial slur, as commonly defined and accepted.

That you are still debating this, despite everyone in this thread proving you wrong, speaks to your unabashed racism.

Also, that is not the origin of that term. In fact, the origin you offered is the racist version of the history of the term. You really do not understand racial slurs, their definitions, or their origins.

Because you're a racist piece of shit.

There are some racists on this board but it is not the folks saying everyone should be treated equally before the law and reach the same standards. Folks like Dicky, who claim it is "racist" to expect everyone to reach the same minimum standards or that it is "racist" to expect nonwhites to be able to do the same thing millions of people successfully do every year... That is actual racism. That is the racism of low expectations.

I say everyone can do it legally if they really want to do so. Yes, that requires effort to qualify themselves and time but it can indeed be done. Dicky's racism is saying that solely due to race nonwhites should have a lower bar because he doesn't think they can meet the same standards. That is what makes dicky so racist.

No, it's you. You are the racist. We even had a poll about it.