• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $923. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

Ontario teacher's union reduces weighting of votes cast by white people

Metaphor

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
8,469
Location
Canberra, Australia
Basic Beliefs
Secular humanism
On Monday,
@OSSTFD20TEACHER
(Ont Sec School Teachers' Fed, District 20) announced that their rules would be changed so that each non-white union member would have his/her vote weighted more than white members. Here are the slides they used to justify the decision to rank & file
(please click through to see the slides and details).

There's no set weighting, but for future votes, a quorum is achieved only if 'Black, Indigenous, or Racialized' votes make up at least 50 per cent of the voters. If they do not, their weighting will be changed to be equal to 50 per cent.

Some racist skkkumbag teachers called this 'reverse racism', and so the local union president said the term 'reverse racism' was 'harmful' and a form of 'harassment'.

I hope and pray political systems everywhere take on this stunning and brave antiracist approach. One person, one vote is just another manifestation of a world rooted in white supremacy.
 

Trausti

Contributor
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
8,965
Location
Northwest
Basic Beliefs
Atheist Norse
In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.

- Lee Kwan Yew

 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,723
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
On Monday,
@OSSTFD20TEACHER
(Ont Sec School Teachers' Fed, District 20) announced that their rules would be changed so that each non-white union member would have his/her vote weighted more than white members. Here are the slides they used to justify the decision to rank & file
(please click through to see the slides and details).

There's no set weighting, but for future votes, a quorum is achieved only if 'Black, Indigenous, or Racialized' votes make up at least 50 per cent of the voters. If they do not, their weighting will be changed to be equal to 50 per cent.

Some racist skkkumbag teachers called this 'reverse racism', and so the local union president said the term 'reverse racism' was 'harmful' and a form of 'harassment'.

I hope and pray political systems everywhere take on this stunning and brave antiracist approach. One person, one vote is just another manifestation of a world rooted in white supremacy.
Assuming this is true (I have to check yet), "reverse racism" is the wrong term. The right term is 'racism', and if one wants more precision, 'racism against White people'.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
8,469
Location
Canberra, Australia
Basic Beliefs
Secular humanism
On Monday,
@OSSTFD20TEACHER
(Ont Sec School Teachers' Fed, District 20) announced that their rules would be changed so that each non-white union member would have his/her vote weighted more than white members. Here are the slides they used to justify the decision to rank & file
(please click through to see the slides and details).

There's no set weighting, but for future votes, a quorum is achieved only if 'Black, Indigenous, or Racialized' votes make up at least 50 per cent of the voters. If they do not, their weighting will be changed to be equal to 50 per cent.

Some racist skkkumbag teachers called this 'reverse racism', and so the local union president said the term 'reverse racism' was 'harmful' and a form of 'harassment'.

I hope and pray political systems everywhere take on this stunning and brave antiracist approach. One person, one vote is just another manifestation of a world rooted in white supremacy.
Assuming this is true (I have to check yet), "reverse racism" is the wrong term. The right term is 'racism', and if one wants more precision, 'racism against White people'.
Like a lot of Woke developments, it smacks of Too Ludicrous to be True. Yet, the Ontario Secondary School Teacher's Federation has remained silent on the issue, and presumably if it were fabricated, they would have said so.

I agree: I never use the term 'reverse racism' (or 'reverse sexism'). I just use 'racism' and 'sexism' when it applies.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,134
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This could get a a bit tricky:

What if in a few years, the majority of union members are POCs. Will the White people get their votes weighted more than the POCs?

Can people just identify as a different race so as to swing the votes one way or another?

What if you are a racially mixed union member? If you are 25% black and 75% white, is your voting weighted differently than if you are 100% black?

What if you are black, but were adopted and raised by white parents in a white community. So, you largely identify with white culture, making you a BINO. How does this affect your vote weighting?

Racial politics is just so confusing.
 
Last edited:

Metaphor

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
8,469
Location
Canberra, Australia
Basic Beliefs
Secular humanism
What if in a few years, the majority of union members are POCs. Will the White people get their votes weighted more than the POCs?
The intention appears that it only applies when POC have not reached quorum - that is, 50 per cent of the voting body. But depending on how carefully it is worded, it could be argued to mean that yes - if POC raw numbers are actually, say, 60 per cent of the voting body, then they should be re-weighted to be 50 per cent.
Can people just identify as a different race so as to swing the votes one way or another?
I don't know. If it is an honour system, I would identify as POC and encourage everyone else to do so as well.
What if you are a racially mixed union member? If you are 25% black and 75% white, is your voting weighted differently than if you are 100% black?
I think it's something the union will have to work through. As a 'wog' Slav, I think I should count as about 50% white, 50% POC in the quorum requirements.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
2,555
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
Why did they not weight it also to have 50:50 male & female while they were there?
Seems like a grave injustice.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
8,469
Location
Canberra, Australia
Basic Beliefs
Secular humanism
Why did they not weight it also to have 50:50 male & female while they were there?
About 60 per cent of secondary school teachers in Ontario are female, so that is the correct direction of inequality to achieve equity of male and female.

Had males been 60 per cent of secondary school teachers I'm sure a 'gender parity' clause would have been introduced, though currently equity between the sexes is much less fashionable than equity between white people and everyone else (except Asians).
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
33,810
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If there's truth to this it's just a lawsuit waiting to happen.
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
319
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
*wing-shrugs*

It would suit me just fine if they gave the same kind of weighting to benefit transgender members, too.

If white members have not actually been doing anything to unfairly advantage themselves, then they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The demonstration of trust toward their minority coworkers could only serve to improve relations in my own humble opinion.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
8,469
Location
Canberra, Australia
Basic Beliefs
Secular humanism
It would suit me just fine if they gave the same kind of weighting to benefit transgender members, too.
I think you'll find naked self-interest often appeals to certain kinds of people.

Out of interest, what weighting would be fair? Do you think the transgender vote should count for 50 per cent of the vote, even if they are 1 per cent of the voters?
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
319
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
@Metaphor As far as you are concerned, I am dictator for life.
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
319
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,188
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
2 quick thoughts
1. What happened to one vote, one value?
2. How will this stop racism in any form?
1)How is the senate organised in Australia? If you live in a smaller state, your vote has more value.
2)I *think* the intent of this measure is much like the comparison I provided - to make sure minorities aren't consistently railroaded by majorities.

That is not to say this is a perfect comparison. After reading the slides I still couldn't make head nor tails to how this is going to be implemented. I'm all in favour of a governing body mirroring the constituents it represents without ignoring its minority members. I don't think this is the way to do it and it should have been trialled first.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
8,469
Location
Canberra, Australia
Basic Beliefs
Secular humanism
1)How is the senate organised in Australia? If you live in a smaller state, your vote has more value.
Your state has disproportionate influence in federal legislation, but everybody within a state has the same vote value as each other. And, as far as I know, there is no modern system that gives individuals additional weighting based on their ethnicity/race.

2)I *think* the intent of this measure is much like the comparison I provided - to make sure minorities aren't consistently railroaded by majorities.
How do you recognise 'railroading' when you see it?

That is not to say this is a perfect comparison. After reading the slides I still couldn't make head nor tails to how this is going to be implemented.
I understand it as:
If both the white voters and the non-white voters each have a majority 'yes' within their race groups, a measure will pass.
If white voters have a majority 'yes' within their race group, but non-white voters do not, then the weighting of the non-white voters will be weighted to 50 per cent. This may or may not be enough to pass or fail the motion.
Conversely, if white voters do not have a majority 'yes' within their race group but non-white voters do have a majority 'yes', the weighting will be changed to consider non-white voters at 50 per cent.

I'm all in favour of a governing body mirroring the constituents it represents without ignoring its minority members.
They are mutually exclusive outcomes.

I don't think this is the way to do it and it should have been trialled first.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,064
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
Panglomeratistiscalism
In ‘Murka your vote has higher weight if you live in a smaller, more rural State. Smaller more rural States have more white people. Ergo racism.
Right wing whiners never mention stuff like that. And compared to teachers unions, that effect is YUUUGE.

But yeah, “racism against whites” in the weighting of teachers union votes is our Big Problem. You betcha.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,188
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
They are mutually exclusive outcomes.
Nope. When sections feel ignored things go bad. "Fuck you we won" is a shitty attitude and not exactly democratic or conducive to preserving democracy.
It's a shitty attitude, but yeah it is democratic. Rigging the system is ending democracy.
Tom
Representation and having it ignore by being the minority is tyranny of the majority. If you want to look at the US as a case example, then I agree - America is fucked. But monkey see money do.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,064
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
Panglomeratistiscalism
Tyranny of the majority is the rallying cry of the wannabe tyrannical minority.
This country is fucked because a minority is determined to hang on to power by destroying representative government.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
19,891
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
They are mutually exclusive outcomes.
Nope. When sections feel ignored things go bad. "Fuck you we won" is a shitty attitude and not exactly democratic or conducive to preserving democracy.
It's a shitty attitude, but yeah it is democratic. Rigging the system is ending democracy.
Tom
Seems to me that "rigging the system" is pretty much endemic in democracies.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
2,830
Location
Midwestern USA
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
They are mutually exclusive outcomes.
Nope. When sections feel ignored things go bad. "Fuck you we won" is a shitty attitude and not exactly democratic or conducive to preserving democracy.
It's a shitty attitude, but yeah it is democratic. Rigging the system is ending democracy.
Tom
Representation and having it ignore by being the minority is tyranny of the majority. If you want to look at the US as a case example, then I agree - America is fucked. But monkey see money do.
Imposing a tyranny of a minority isn't an improvement.
But it's a private organization, if I understand correctly, and has no requirement for democratic methods. I doubt that the members are doing themselves any favors with this policy.

But they aren't important to me so I don't care.
Tom
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
2,830
Location
Midwestern USA
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
They are mutually exclusive outcomes.
Nope. When sections feel ignored things go bad. "Fuck you we won" is a shitty attitude and not exactly democratic or conducive to preserving democracy.
It's a shitty attitude, but yeah it is democratic. Rigging the system is ending democracy.
Tom
Seems to me that "rigging the system" is pretty much endemic in democracies.
Doesn't make it a good thing.

At least ending democracy in this particular organization was voted on and passed by a substantial majority. Frankly, I just don't much care what they do.
Tom
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
319
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I honestly see it as a trust exercise more than anything. I think that it's not really a zero-sum game. I think that there is really a lot for an organization to gain by sending minority groups a message that they are not really at risk of becoming marginalized, which would greatly reduce tension.

While the technique might have its drawbacks, I think it would be a fallacy to focus on only the drawbacks of such a technique.
 

Harry Bosch

Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
5,265
Location
Washington
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I honestly see it as a trust exercise more than anything. I think that it's not really a zero-sum game. I think that there is really a lot for an organization to gain by sending minority groups a message that they are not really at risk of becoming marginalized, which would greatly reduce tension.

While the technique might have its drawbacks, I think it would be a fallacy to focus on only the drawbacks of such a technique.
As a non-white person, I think that it's totally insulting.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
8,469
Location
Canberra, Australia
Basic Beliefs
Secular humanism
They are mutually exclusive outcomes.
Nope. When sections feel ignored things go bad. "Fuck you we won" is a shitty attitude and not exactly democratic or conducive to preserving democracy.
You wrote:
I'm all in favour of a governing body mirroring the constituents it represents without ignoring its minority members.
A vote outcome is one way or another, and who the 'minority' is depends on how you voted and whether the resolution passed.

Now, I interpreted 'ignoring' as 'allowing majority votes to stand as they are.' But maybe you didn't mean that-- I don't know what you mean by 'ignoring' minority members?
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
8,469
Location
Canberra, Australia
Basic Beliefs
Secular humanism
In ‘Murka your vote has higher weight if you live in a smaller, more rural State. Smaller more rural States have more white people. Ergo racism.
Right wing whiners never mention stuff like that. And compared to teachers unions, that effect is YUUUGE.

But yeah, “racism against whites” in the weighting of teachers union votes is our Big Problem. You betcha.
Actually, I've long been against equal representation of unequal-population states.

But, your analogy is a poor one. First, the American system does not weight votes toward white people by design. Hawai'i has never had a white majority and is ranked 40th in population among the states.

What's with your straw man? Who described this as 'our' 'Big Problem'?
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
8,469
Location
Canberra, Australia
Basic Beliefs
Secular humanism
They are mutually exclusive outcomes.
Nope. When sections feel ignored things go bad. "Fuck you we won" is a shitty attitude and not exactly democratic or conducive to preserving democracy.
It's a shitty attitude, but yeah it is democratic. Rigging the system is ending democracy.
Tom
Seems to me that "rigging the system" is pretty much endemic in democracies.
Doesn't make it a good thing.

At least ending democracy in this particular organization was voted on and passed by a substantial majority. Frankly, I just don't much care what they do.
Tom
I understand that although the teacher's union has about 1,200 members, this resolution had about 70 people voting in total who were physically present.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
2,830
Location
Midwestern USA
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I understand that although the teacher's union has about 1,200 members, this resolution had about 70 people voting in total who were physically present.

My interpretation of that is ~1130 members voted "whatever".
Maybe they regret it. Maybe not. Who knows? Who cares?
~1200 people picked a policy that I think is a bad idea. But they picked it, not me.
Tom
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,188
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Now, I interpreted 'ignoring' as 'allowing majority votes to stand as they are.' But maybe you didn't mean that-- I don't know what you mean by 'ignoring' minority members?
A fair point. I meant a group that could never be a majority but is still sizeable and measurable and would be consistently ignored in a "first past the post" process. For example it is the reason a lot of American right wingers justify their Electoral College (which is bullshit, how their senate is organized fulfils that role) so that rural Americans aren't ignored because of the altar of majority rule.

Come on Metaphor, you're smart enough to know this.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
8,469
Location
Canberra, Australia
Basic Beliefs
Secular humanism
A fair point. I meant a group that could never be a majority but is still sizeable and measurable and would be consistently ignored in a "first past the post" process. For example it is the reason a lot of American right wingers justify their Electoral College (which is bullshit, how their senate is organized fulfils that role) so that rural Americans aren't ignored because of the altar of majority rule.

Come on Metaphor, you're smart enough to know this.
I have a problem with the word 'group', I suppose.

When I vote, I vote on issues, not because I'm formally or informally a member of some group. And I think there is definitely room to consider the margin of victory on a straight yes/no vote. I think a measure that has 80% 'yes' support probably has less to concede to the 20% of people who voted 'no'. But a measure that has 51% support should probably listen to why 49% do not like the measure.

But I've got a real problem with votes being weighted on some immutable characteristic basis.
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
319
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I honestly see it as a trust exercise more than anything. I think that it's not really a zero-sum game. I think that there is really a lot for an organization to gain by sending minority groups a message that they are not really at risk of becoming marginalized, which would greatly reduce tension.

While the technique might have its drawbacks, I think it would be a fallacy to focus on only the drawbacks of such a technique.
As a non-white person, I think that it's totally insulting.
*wing-shrugs* I do not care whether you personally are insulted or not. I have just met you.

As a queer, I would simply be amused if the straight people were to furnish me with a weighted vote. Ultimately, those things don't really matter. If the straight people thought enough of me to furnish me with a weighted vote, then I would trust them, whether or not they gave me a weighted vote. We either succeed at getting along peacefully with the straight people, or we fail at getting along peacefully with the straight people.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,188
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
I have a problem with the word 'group', I suppose.
Fair enough.
When I vote, I vote on issues, not because I'm formally or informally a member of some group
Good. I think that's a smart way to vote. I wish more people would vote that way.
I think a measure that has 80% 'yes' support probably has less to concede to the 20% of people who voted 'no'. But a measure that has 51% support should probably listen to why 49% do not like the measure.
That's one way to look at it. And I kind of agree. What I don't like about that principle is that it encourages fringe mentality and disenfranchisement . I know you don't like the word group and I'm sorry but if a group, not an individual but a sizeable body of like minded individuals are consistently ignored in what they are being told is a fair and democratic process; how do you think that will play out? You know because people are people. And just so we're clear, I'm not sure that is the case in the example you provided in starting this thread. I am saying that is a reason to put weighting into votes.
But I've got a real problem with votes being weighted on some immutable characteristic basis.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean when you say this. I don't think you mean it to be 1=1 so the people who are at the bottom ten can always go fuck themselves but I don't know what you are trying to say either.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
33,810
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I honestly see it as a trust exercise more than anything. I think that it's not really a zero-sum game. I think that there is really a lot for an organization to gain by sending minority groups a message that they are not really at risk of becoming marginalized, which would greatly reduce tension.

While the technique might have its drawbacks, I think it would be a fallacy to focus on only the drawbacks of such a technique.

So shall we give the Nazis an equal vote with the non-Nazis?
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
319
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
@Loren Pechtel

The only valid application I can think of for eugenics is to breed racism out of people, and even that would make me unpopular.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
8,469
Location
Canberra, Australia
Basic Beliefs
Secular humanism
but if a group, not an individual but a sizeable body of like minded individuals are consistently ignored in what they are being told is a fair and democratic process; how do you think that will play out?
But that's what I don't understand. Who are the people in this 'group' who are consistently ignored? How do people know they are in a 'group' that is consistently ignored? My workplace recently voted on a pay resolution. I discussed it with one person who was against the resolution. I was for it. The results were something like 87% of people voted on it, and the resolution had something like 80% support among the voters. So, how would my friend know he'd been consistently ignored?

It would be one thing for the teacher's union to have said "the following past votes were all passed by an overall majority as well as a majority of white voters. But the resolution would not have passed if only non-white people voted". That could put a spotlight on a potential issue. But I suspect that they didn't really have any such cases. But if they did, it would be interesting, perhaps, to explore why white people and non-white people saw the issue so differently. But to go from that to weighting votes against white people is simply racist.
You know because people are people. And just so we're clear, I'm not sure that is the case in the example you provided in starting this thread. I am saying that is a reason to put weighting into votes.
I can't think of any good reason to put weighting into votes - your vote should not be worth more just because you have an unpopular opinion.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean when you say this. I don't think you mean it to be 1=1 so the people who are at the bottom ten can always go fuck themselves but I don't know what you are trying to say either.
I don't think votes should count more or less based on an immutable characteristic like sex or race.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
8,469
Location
Canberra, Australia
Basic Beliefs
Secular humanism
If the straight people thought enough of me to furnish me with a weighted vote, then I would trust them, whether or not they gave me a weighted vote. We either succeed at getting along peacefully with the straight people, or we fail at getting along peacefully with the straight people.
If straight people thought so condescendingly of me to furnish me with a weighted vote, then I would distrust them.
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
319
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
If the straight people thought enough of me to furnish me with a weighted vote, then I would trust them, whether or not they gave me a weighted vote. We either succeed at getting along peacefully with the straight people, or we fail at getting along peacefully with the straight people.
If straight people thought so condescendingly of me to furnish me with a weighted vote, then I would distrust them.
Nah, you'd just try to use the power to fuck over transgender people.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
8,469
Location
Canberra, Australia
Basic Beliefs
Secular humanism
Nah, you'd just try to use the power to fuck over transgender people.
What kinds of policies do you think would 'fuck over' transgender people?
I am sure you would try to think of something. I have zero confidence in your morals.
What do you think I would 'think of'? It appears to me you can't point to anything I've said that would be a policy that would 'fuck over' trans people, so you have merely decided to smear me without producing evidence.
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
319
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
319
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.

Metaphor

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
8,469
Location
Canberra, Australia
Basic Beliefs
Secular humanism
Please, forget it, @Metaphor. I can't.
You want to smear me, and then you want me to forget you've done it? I can't.
The only reason that anybody can see it is that you left the quote in there. If you want to discuss it further, then DM me.
Everybody can see post #42 where you said I would find a policy to fuck over transgender people. Now I agree this thread should not be about your personal problems with me, but you were the first to bring it up.
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
319
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
Please, forget it, @Metaphor. I can't.
You want to smear me, and then you want me to forget you've done it? I can't.
The only reason that anybody can see it is that you left the quote in there. If you want to discuss it further, then DM me.
Everybody can see post #42 where you said I would find a policy to fuck over transgender people. Now I agree this thread should not be about your personal problems with me, but you were the first to bring it up.
Mods, please, I regret flying at this guy's throat. @ZiprHead or whoever is here, I am sorry for causing trouble. I'm going to put this guy on ignore, and I promise I won't be any further trouble.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
18,064
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
Panglomeratistiscalism
the American system does not weight votes toward white people by design.

BZZZZZT.
Thanks for playing, and be sure to pick up a complimentary copy of "American History for Ignoramuses" on the way out.
The American system was designed from the ground up by white land owners and slave owners, to benefit white land owners and slave owners. That's why there's a Senate and an electoral college.
 
Top Bottom