Wapsi Square Forum

Oh, it's simple. People of a certain race are morally inferior solely on the basis of their race. People of a certain other race are immune to criticism and entitled to privilege solely on the basis of their race. With variations on which race is what, these were the policies of the KKK, the National Socialist Party, the white government of South Africa, the Japanese government prior to and during WWII... and today if you don't agree with them (and correctly assign races to roles) then you're a racist.

Warrl wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:13 pm Oh, it's simple. People of a certain race are morally inferior solely on the basis of their race. People of a certain other race are immune to criticism and entitled to privilege solely on the basis of their race. With variations on which race is what, these were the policies of the KKK, the National Socialist Party, the white government of South Africa, the Japanese government prior to and during WWII... and today if you don't agree with them (and correctly assign races to roles) then you're a racist.

... what he said...

I worked with a guy who played the race card constantly . . . the problem was that he was a primadonna who refused to do the parts of his job he didn't like.

He's also why we instituted policies requiring signatures from specified responsible parties at certain steps in the process . . . he'd be told what he needed to fix (a routine step) and he'd hand it over for release without fixing them, and say it had been approved when it hadn't.

But of course anyone pointing this out was racist.

OTOH, he wound up working under minority women . . . at which point he promptly requested transfer.

--FreeFlier

I keep re-reading your post, and I still can't quite parse it out...

Warrl wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:13 pm Oh, it's simple. People of a certain race are morally inferior solely on the basis of their race. People of a certain other race are immune to criticism and entitled to privilege solely on the basis of their race. With variations on which race is what, these were the policies of the KKK, the National Socialist Party, the white government of South Africa, the Japanese government prior to and during WWII...

Up to here, I'm fine. I get it.

But...

Warrl wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:13 pm and today if you don't agree with them (and correctly assign races to roles) then you're a racist.

Here, you lose me completely.

Agree with whom? Those people mentioned above? How would disagreeing with the ideas mentioned above (any one race being superior to any other one race - or more) make you a racist? The way I read it, the original theorem stated above is what's racist...

And how does that relate to my post, where someone uses the race card without justification, as an intimidation tactic to deflect from their own inappropriate action (i.e. not paying to get on the bus)?

There are a large number of people who use accusations of racism as the ultimate trump card . . . especially if they aren't getting their way.

And this is exactly what this person did to you.

This sometimes done even when both accuser and accused are the same race.

They don't see that they are completely discrediting the accusation (the classic example of The Boy Who Cried Wolf) and thereby enabling racism.


You should hear what a friend of mine from college has to say about it . . . he's a third-generation freedman: his grandfather was a sharecropper and his great-grandfather was a slave.

--FreeFlier

"I REFUUUUUUSE!"

But it's OK to let them store us in transparent plastic bags, right?

Sometimes it really matters which synonym you use...

I suspect that that is in the UK or some other commonwealth country.

lake_wrangler wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:35 pm But it's OK to let them store us in transparent plastic bags, right?

I'm thinking 'Pods', actually...

I don't know if I've already asked this question, but does anyone got any recommendations for a good rucksack? I'd been looking at ordering a Särmä TST RP80, as I hear they'd pretty damn good, and are comparable to rucks that cost more than twice as much (the current price is around $520), but I might also look into a cheaper British clamshell ruck, if I can find one that's in MTP.

You might consider Timbuk2; https://www.timbuk2.com/

I started out being a fan of the single strap, classic Messenger Bag, but eventually graduated to a dual strap backpack type bag[ reasons]...

They're not the priciest, nor the cheapest either, but built real rugged, so they last a long time...

I'm talking about tactical bags that can be used as AWOL bags. Here's the rucksack I mentioned. Something with a frame for support, and can be expected to not get shredded if I fall down a steep hill in the woods and snag everything on the way to the bottom. Though, the website doesn't say anything about it being waterproof (easily fixed by inserting a military waterproof bag).

Edit: I watched the review video about it again, and while the guy doesn't seem to specifically mention it, when he shows the inside of the bag, it certainly looks like it's got some waterproofing, but as a general rule, you never assume that a single layer of waterproofing is enough.

Got it.

From back in the day (many, many decades ago) the manufacturers of tool kit bags came out with something called Ballistic Nylon fabric.

Now, I know that's marketing hype, but just the same, it makes for a pretty durable bag to haul my stuff around in.

I do have a question though; are all those 'loops' on the bag's outer surface really useful?

All the loops are for attaching things as needed with carabiners or strings and such. Also great for inserting twigs with leaves for more camo if needed.

The webbing is for attaching pouches. It's referred to as PALS webbing, short for Pouch Alignment Ladder System. The pouches will have similar webbing on the back, and straps that you weave between the webbing on the bag/vest/cummerbund and on the pouch itself, eventually fastening using snap buttons on the pouch. This makes it really difficult for a pouch to get pulled off by accident.

Well, I saw my grandmother (on my dad's side) for the first time since the pandemic began.

Not too long ago, she ended up in the hospital with a UTI. The antibiotics they gave her somehow gave her thrush, so she couldn't really drink, which resulted in her being badly dehydrated. On top of that, she's on antibiotics again because she was septic. Apparently there was bacteria in her blood (which I think is the definition of being septic, but feel free to tell me if it's something else).

There's some other details that I don't really recall, but right now she's on oxygen and in hospice. She can barely move one of her armed, and I don't think she can really speak at the moment.

Alkarii wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 10:27 pm Apparently there was bacteria in her blood (which I think is the definition of being septic, but feel free to tell me if it's something else).

There's some other details that I don't really recall, but right now she's on oxygen and in hospice. She can barely move one of her armed, and I don't think she can really speak at the moment.

Really sorry to hear that'd she's been facing such a nasty sequence of maladies. What you say, doesn't sound good at all. It's good that things worked out to let you be able to see her. Being sick in hospital (or hospice) is scary enough at the best of times, and COVID isolation has made things much worse for a lot of families dealing with that sort of situation.

Bacteria in the blood stream is "bacteremia". "Sepsis" or "being septic" is when your body reacts so strongly to an infection that it triggers a wide-spread inflammation throughout the body, leading to tissue and organ damage, and sometimes to septic shock. The two often go together - bacteremia is one of a number of types of infection that can trigger sepsis.

À propos of nothing, I was glad to see that Mark Rober's Glitter Bomb graduated from pranking uncouth porch pirates to helping law enforcement break phone scam rings!




I just love the interaction with the lady from the thumbnail:

Police: what do have al that glitter on for?
Scammer: So I just -
Scammer: *giggle*
Scammer: I don't know...
(And it just gets worse from there... She did end up getting placed in custody.)