Reasonable Discussion: Systemic Oppression

[Bigbrog]

18 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

 

BAH! You are the funny one. This is hilarious. You can't actually be serious. I know you aren't. That's how funny this is. Because you love to chime in on conversations and critique ONLY ONE SIDE and stir up shit. Then you have the temerity to actually refer to someone else as 'childish'. Yup, you are funny. And lazy. And irrelevant. Why are you even wasting the time to comment? 

I don't have to continue to provide evidence of how much smarter and more capable of nuanced conversation than you and several others here. It all currently reside above us. Just scroll and read. But you wouldn't defile yourself by researching your thoughts. Heaven forbid. You'll never be confused with a smart or disciplined thinker even by accident. Worry not. 

 

 

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 3/5/2026 at 10:36 AM, Bigbrog said:

So, you start your premise every time you read something or see something that racism is involved.  You are skeptical about what people say and how they say it because you are convinced it is embedded in ill intent and/or racism?  What a terrible way to live your life...you must be miserable.  By any chance are you about a 20 something white man...errr...person that thinks they know what is best for the oppressed and minority??

And seriously guy...get some help!

Sorry I may have missed this one to respond to. 

Here goes: 

Your words hint at you being racist  I’m not imagining it. You could just be ignorant and lazy but your consistency leads me to believe you have a bias. You could just be a troll. But to honestly troll on this subject would lead me to believe you ARE racist because who would do that?! 

The beginning of this thread is that, yes, racism is embedded into many systems of our society. Its there. That's not really up for debate. Unless you disagree. If so, how do you account for the things that I have mentioned? 

I know its a difficult subject. But to dismiss it out of hand without investigating it yourself says something. 

What do you think it says? 

To me it says you're lazy or you are trying to avoid having your opinion challenged or changed. Lashing out is a pretty strong indicator of emotional immaturity or that you are easily triggered. If that is the case, consider the subject matter. If you weren't racist you could easily engage in the conversation. See that others ARE racist and perpetuate the system that unjustly harms certain people and benefits other people. Then come to the conclusion that the system is unfair and should be changed. Then we can have the conversation about best ways to change the system for the benefit of the most people. 

Likely as not you're in the 'benefit' group. People in the 'benefit' group tend to want to maintain the system that allowed them to thrive vs a system where they don't know where they would fit. That's just human nature. Its not wrong or bad necessarily. Unless you KNOW that certain people are harmed so that you could benefit. Then you are complicit. If you maintain your 'IGNORANCE' then you can convince yourself that its not your fault or yours to fix. Circa Germany in the 30's and 40's. 'We heard the screams but weren't 100% sure of who or what it was, so we didn't have an obligation to address it.' 

Miserable: that I see racism in things that are racist? Not miserable at all. I see things the way that it is. Not the way that I want things to be. Seems like that is how you are going about this conversation. Ignoring facts and evidence so you don't have to acknowledge it. I don't have to lie to myself. Is that your claim, that these studies and reports are my way of lying to myself? I would love more detail about that. 

Oppressed and minority: Have I made any claim that 'I know' the best way to go about fixing a situation? No I have not. I am merely showing that something exists and the effects that it has and continues to have on our society. The fact that you work so hard to NOT see it or acknowledge the possibility that it exists should worry you. If you had a shred of self-awareness on this topic you should be worried at the length you are going to avoid addressing an obvious truth. But of course this would lead to the question, 'what other uncomfortable truths are you avoiding rather than address the reality of the situations?' We're all the hero of our own story. This is true. But you can still harm people regardless of how you see yourself. 

Get some help: with what specifically? Also, I feel this is another way for you to not have to consider the truth of my claim without actually engaging with it. I think you're scared and this is a safe way for you to prove to yourself that you don't even need to consider my ideas because of how much it will cost in comparing them with yours. 

You still haven't offered a reason why my claim or the claim in the reports and studies are incorrect or wrong. I feel this whole side quest is your attempt to discredit without engaging because you know you can't do so honestly and maintain your world view.

[wrestlingguy]

4 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

Sorry I may have missed this one to respond to. 

Here goes: 

Your words hint at you being racist  I’m not imagining it. You could just be ignorant and lazy but your consistency leads me to believe you have a bias. You could just be a troll. But to honestly troll on this subject would lead me to believe you ARE racist because who would do that?! 

The beginning of this thread is that, yes, racism is embedded into many systems of our society. Its there. That's not really up for debate. Unless you disagree. If so, how do you account for the things that I have mentioned? 

I know its a difficult subject. But to dismiss it out of hand without investigating it yourself says something. 

What do you think it says? 

To me it says you're lazy or you are trying to avoid having your opinion challenged or changed. Lashing out is a pretty strong indicator of emotional immaturity or that you are easily triggered. If that is the case, consider the subject matter. If you weren't racist you could easily engage in the conversation. See that others ARE racist and perpetuate the system that unjustly harms certain people and benefits other people. Then come to the conclusion that the system is unfair and should be changed. Then we can have the conversation about best ways to change the system for the benefit of the most people. 

Likely as not you're in the 'benefit' group. People in the 'benefit' group tend to want to maintain the system that allowed them to thrive vs a system where they don't know where they would fit. That's just human nature. Its not wrong or bad necessarily. Unless you KNOW that certain people are harmed so that you could benefit. Then you are complicit. If you maintain your 'IGNORANCE' then you can convince yourself that its not your fault or yours to fix. Circa Germany in the 30's and 40's. 'We heard the screams but weren't 100% sure of who or what it was, so we didn't have an obligation to address it.' 

Miserable: that I see racism in things that are racist? Not miserable at all. I see things the way that it is. Not the way that I want things to be. Seems like that is how you are going about this conversation. Ignoring facts and evidence so you don't have to acknowledge it. I don't have to lie to myself. Is that your claim, that these studies and reports are my way of lying to myself? I would love more detail about that. 

Oppressed and minority: Have I made any claim that 'I know' the best way to go about fixing a situation? No I have not. I am merely showing that something exists and the effects that it has and continues to have on our society. The fact that you work so hard to NOT see it or acknowledge the possibility that it exists should worry you. If you had a shred of self-awareness on this topic you should be worried at the length you are going to avoid addressing an obvious truth. But of course this would lead to the question, 'what other uncomfortable truths are you avoiding rather than address the reality of the situations?' We're all the hero of our own story. This is true. But you can still harm people regardless of how you see yourself. 

Get some help: with what specifically? Also, I feel this is another way for you to not have to consider the truth of my claim without actually engaging with it. I think you're scared and this is a safe way for you to prove to yourself that you don't even need to consider my ideas because of how much it will cost in comparing them with yours. 

You still haven't offered a reason why my claim or the claim in the reports and studies are incorrect or wrong. I feel this whole side quest is your attempt to discredit without engaging because you know you can't do so honestly and maintain your world view.

I will save everyone the time of reading the novel. The same as every rebuttal ever by TPT. If you don't agree with me your are ignorant, lazy, stupid, etc.

[Caveira]

15 minutes ago, wrestlingguy said:

I will save everyone the time of reading the novel. The same as every rebuttal ever by TPT. If you don't agree with me your are ignorant, lazy, stupid, etc.

You forgot that your not Nuanced enough lol 

Edited March 17 by Caveira

[Lipdrag]

I have a confession to make:  i am a colorist.  I have a prejudice and bias toward colors I can read and that are a nice contrast with a background.  I prefer black over all others against a white background.  And I prejudge reds , pinks, and other highlight colors as being unserious before I even read the content.  I think the UN will probably come out with a proclamation against me even though the science of color and contrast proves what I say to be right.  But we all know at science is colorist also.

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 hour ago, wrestlingguy said:

I will save everyone the time of reading the novel. The same as every rebuttal ever by TPT. If you don't agree with me your are ignorant, lazy, stupid, etc.

 

If you weren't either ignorant, lazy, stupid, or (I noticed you left off..) racist you could easily  dismantle the claims being made. Sorry you are not up to the task. But announcing that fact to everyone is not the flex you think it is. But again, it probably serves you well to loudly and proudly announce to members in your community that you don't read or understand complex things that could challenge your views. You wouldn't want to frighten or alienate the rest of the group. 

 

 

[wrestlingguy]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

If you weren't either ignorant, lazy, stupid, or (I noticed you left off..) racist.

 

 

You are so fucking stupid you don't understand the meaning of etc. You say the same thing every post. You just copy and paste into your AI program to differentiate the same points every time you post.

I used to think you were Dylan Palacio but Cornell would have left you in the dust.

[ThreePointTakedown]

24 minutes ago, wrestlingguy said:

You are so fucking stupid you don't understand the meaning of etc. You say the same thing every post. You just copy and paste into your AI program to differentiate the same points every time you post.

I used to think you were Dylan Palacio but Cornell would have left you in the dust.

This is why I know for a fact that you are terrified to engage honestly. Diverting the conversation to the person making the claim is the only way you can think of to discredit me so you don't have to consider the possibility that you are wrong. 

[wrestlingguy]

23 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

This is why I know for a fact that you are terrified to engage honestly. Diverting the conversation to the person making the claim is the only way you can think of to discredit me so you don't have to consider the possibility that you are wrong. 

So I am supposed to be proving you wrong? All this time I thought we were supposed to be "reasonably discussing".

Maybe change the title of the thread to I am not actually looking to have an honest discussion, I just want to show off the latest garbage I learned in my college sociology class and show you how wrong I think you are for disagreeing.

[Bigbrog]

17 hours ago, wrestlingguy said:

So I am supposed to be proving you wrong? All this time I thought we were supposed to be "reasonably discussing".

Maybe change the title of the thread to I am not actually looking to have an honest discussion, I just want to show off the latest garbage I learned in my college sociology class and show you how wrong I think you are for disagreeing.

This!  I would add he also does nothing but try and diagnosis peoples mental and emotional state based on a few sentences versus his paragraph after paragraph, which ultimately says A LOT more about his mental state then the person he responds to.

[mspart]

I'm systemically oppressed.   I'm mean looking and look very angry.   See my pic.   When you look like the Hulk, people tend not to give you the opportunities others get.  

mspart

[Gene Mills Fan]

Did any of you lose college scholarships to the systematically oppressed? 

[Rassling]

come on guys, take off your gloves and come join us over at the NCAA 1st round room. There’s enough chairs, pizza and beer for everyone!

[jross]

Stereotypes are statistically accurate at the group level.  They are evolutionarily necessary.  When you have the time to understand the individual, the stereotype should fade away.

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 3/23/2026 at 1:35 PM, jross said:

 

Stereotypes are statistically accurate at the group level.  They are evolutionarily necessary.  When you have the time to understand the individual, the stereotype should fade away.

Cite your source(s), please? 

[jross]

35 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Cite your source(s), please? 

No

[ThreePointTakedown]

23 minutes ago, jross said:

No

So no one should place any weight on the veracity of your claim? Great. Glad we can agree. 

[jross]

32 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

So no one should place any weight on the veracity of your claim? Great. Glad we can agree. 

Nobody should get into the circular pattern of repeatedly citing work and having you ask them again and again.  This is a topic you and I have discussed before (stereotypes), using citations, about which content is also well-established, and you simply disagree with.

[ThreePointTakedown]

17 hours ago, jross said:

Nobody should get into the circular pattern of repeatedly citing work and having you ask them again and again.  This is a topic you and I have discussed before (stereotypes), using citations, about which content is also well-established, and you simply disagree with.

You made a vague claim that you can't possibly prove to be accurate other than, 'Its common sense'.  Why can't you just admit that? That's obviously your source or you would include something. Because not doing that makes you simply look foolish. Why do that to yourself? I don't get it. I'm sorry that me asking you to 'cite a source' is triggering.

 

I'm sorry that you're held to the standard of any 6th grader that writes an essay about any topic ever. But if you took half as much time researching your claim, than I do in asking you about it, then we could discuss the points and not the meta. 

Your points aren't ever thought out completely which is why I have to ask. The sources are bias or cherry picked. They typically end with 'I just feel this way about it' or something like that WHICH. IS. NOT. A. GOOD. REASON. 

How is this so difficult? 

I know you want me to believe what you believe. I want the same for you. We crave community. We want to be surrounded by people with our same ideals. Including opinions on important as well as mundane topics. It makes us feel safe and at ease. 

 

Me pushing back seems to make you and the rest of the pose angry. Although if you really sat down and asked yourself why you might be surprised as to why you all are angry with me. I'll bet its JUST that I push back. 

You just want me to believe by the same ways and means that you came to believe and I. JUST. DON'T. You don't make compelling cases for your beliefs and I think you don't have the patience or the courage to really drill down as to why you hold those beliefs. And each time I press you to scratch just a bit below the surface y'all refuse. You find a way to avoid or run from the conversation. I am equally frustrated that you are not patient enough for these conversations. But I also hope that others read this and they find my arguments more convincing than yours. 

[Bigbrog]

On 3/23/2026 at 12:35 PM, jross said:

 

Stereotypes are statistically accurate at the group level.  They are evolutionarily necessary.  When you have the time to understand the individual, the stereotype should fade away.

I learned this very thing in my Evolution class in college (I have a biology degree).  As you indicate it is evolutionarily necessary (exact words from the professor about stereotypes) as it is all part of the fight or flight response and how animals have been able to survive by lumping physical and psychological like characteristics (stereotypes) about other animals based on past experiences.  Very basic example, if an animal knows that if another animal looks a certain way (ex. bright colors and looks like a frog) it needs to stay away from it because it is most likely poisonous...it is basing survival on a stereotype. 

[wrestlingguy]

2 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

 Very basic example, if an animal knows that if another animal looks a certain way (ex. bright colors and looks like a frog) it needs to stay away from it because it is most likely poisonous...it is basing survival on a stereotype. 

It reminds me of the meme that says this exact thing about the liberals with their bright colored hair correlating with their toxicity and poor mental health.

I have yet to meet an adult conservative with bright colored(pink, purple, blue, etc) hair. There is definitely something there. 

[Bigbrog]

24 minutes ago, wrestlingguy said:

It reminds me of the meme that says this exact thing about the liberals with their bright colored hair correlating with their toxicity and poor mental health.

I have yet to meet an adult conservative with bright colored(pink, purple, blue, etc) hair. There is definitely something there. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

49 minutes ago, wrestlingguy said:

It reminds me of the meme that says this exact thing about the liberals with their bright colored hair correlating with their toxicity and poor mental health.

I have yet to meet an adult conservative with bright colored(pink, purple, blue, etc) hair. There is definitely something there. 

I will venture a guess. People that are bullied by their community for superficial attributes take one of several paths forward. 

 

• They stop drawing attention to themselves in order to prevent further bullying and abandoning that particular form of self expression in order to maintain their place within the community that bullied them
• Continue to embrace this form of self expression and find a new community that accepts them and potentially embraces more extreme and vibrant means of self expression

Both scenarios display strength and cowardice in one form or another. 

• One prioritizes the beauty in our individuality and how empathy can build strong communities. Strength, leaving a group that is no longer safe. Cowardice, refusing to fight to change a harmful action from members of the group.
• One succumbs to the fear of losing the safety of community over individual expression. Strength, setting aside things that might put your safety in danger. Cowardice, allowing members of your group to treat fellow members in a harmful manner. 

Some find it easier and more rewarding to stick with the group. Some find it easier and more rewarding to seek out more accepting communities. 

 

Can we agree that each group has their own ways of growing their numbers. One group will develop more and more harmful ways of maintaining and growing their numbers and the other will seek to be more and more accepting in an attempt to do the same. 

[Bigbrog]

20 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

I will venture a guess. People that are bullied by their community for superficial attributes take one of several paths forward. 

 

• They stop drawing attention to themselves in order to prevent further bullying and abandoning that particular form of self expression in order to maintain their place within the community that bullied them
• Continue to embrace this form of self expression and find a new community that accepts them and potentially embraces more extreme and vibrant means of self expression

Both scenarios display strength and cowardice in one form or another. 

• One prioritizes the beauty in our individuality and how empathy can build strong communities. Strength, leaving a group that is no longer safe. Cowardice, refusing to fight to change a harmful action from members of the group.
• One succumbs to the fear of losing the safety of community over individual expression. Strength, setting aside things that might put your safety in danger. Cowardice, allowing members of your group to treat fellow members in a harmful manner. 

Some find it easier and more rewarding to stick with the group. Some find it easier and more rewarding to seek out more accepting communities. 

 

Can we agree that each group has their own ways of growing their numbers. One group will develop more and more harmful ways of maintaining and growing their numbers and the other will seek to be more and more accepting in an attempt to do the same. 

  

[ThreePointTakedown]

9 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

  

Do you disagree?