(02-27-2018 05:08 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 04:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 03:43 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 03:37 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 03:30 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  So, a state that oppresses a majority of its people and forces them into poverty via outright legislation is not a failed state? It's certainly failing most of its populace.

Conflating the two issues doesn't make one of them any less true.

I'm not arguing the morality of the situation, only that it functioned--which is true.

Your feels are irrelevant to the point made.

It functioned if you were white. That was under 20% of the population even at its peak. So your argument rests on the premise that a government systemically repressing (and this point is inarguable) 80+% of its population can be considered functional.

You can try to couch it in whatever insulting language you want, but you're sounding pretty Stormfronty right now.

You should try listening instead of inferring.

That is not my argument or point.

If you think I am sounding "Stormfronty" that's probably because you are an idiot. I think most people on here would buy that.

I know what your point is. I also know its hilariously ironic that you tell others they "miss the forrest [sic] for the trees" when you declare how much more functional SA was under a horrifically criminal system.

Yes, I get that you mean economically. Everybody gets that. But it's not being "PC" to acknowledge that that's BS when a majority ethnic group was forced into shantytowns. That's not functional economics, its thievery and gross human rights violations. You can't separate the two, and while I understand that you aren't explicitly trying to be racist, that doesn't let you off the hook either. Sorry if that hurts your feels.