The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(01-18-2019 10:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 10:09 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 09:54 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 09:46 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 09:35 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Just stop. It is a song or cheer anyone can sing it. When women do their fair share of dying in wars and in the workplace we can change the lyrics. Next thing you know you want men playing in female sports.

Just quoting so this doesn't get edited.

What a world we live in.

A strange thing to spend any time worried about. It's an old song.

But on the other end, this is apparently all the excuse some need to belittle and insult those with other views or who may even just look different.

Everyone knows the west in the most "inclusive" place on Earth, a vast non ethnostate, where there only inherit evil is blue eyes.

Care to elaborate?

You never heard of Kalergi or the 65' immigration act, 90' immigration act etc.

Sure, I'm just asking for you to fully flesh out what you mean.

"Women in wars and the workplace" and "only evil is blue eyes." I think I know where you're headed, I just want to see you get there.

I don't think the people throwing up their hands and going "but it's just a song" really get it. Culture is constantly under attack and at a certain point it will touch something you care about. This is sort of a dominance thing. Normal people don't give a flying **** about inclusion in leisure activity. It's a lot like title 9 laws. Why does anyone care whether a university allocates more or less funding to women's sport? It's entirely voluntary.

There's an ideology of loosely connected fringe weirdos who view everything as dialectical and a struggle between oppressors and the oppressed. They base their world view on the idea that only group identity matters. That's basically what intersectionality is. If your group A, you have so much privilege and group B has less, that means you have to give up some of your equity to them. They're further down the oppression grid than you. It's a retarded worldview, one encouraged by academia and the corporate world unfortunately. I call it that because in order to fight past injustice like sexism and racism, they segregate people into categories by race and gender.

Not to mention that by their reasoning, it would be ethical if upon seeing the inequity of newborns with congenital heart conditions I took it upon myself to stab the healthy children in the maternity ward in the chest to level the playing field.

I'm questioning my own sanity.

(01-18-2019 10:59 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 10:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 10:09 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 09:54 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 09:46 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  Just quoting so this doesn't get edited.

What a world we live in.

A strange thing to spend any time worried about. It's an old song.

But on the other end, this is apparently all the excuse some need to belittle and insult those with other views or who may even just look different.

Everyone knows the west in the most "inclusive" place on Earth, a vast non ethnostate, where there only inherit evil is blue eyes.

Care to elaborate?

You never heard of Kalergi or the 65' immigration act, 90' immigration act etc.

Sure, I'm just asking for you to fully flesh out what you mean.

"Women in wars and the workplace" and "only evil is blue eyes." I think I know where you're headed, I just want to see you get there.

Google "blue eyed devils vs brown eyed devils" The USA last year had the lowest birth rate of "white" babies ever in history of the USA. Do your own research.

(01-18-2019 11:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 10:59 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 10:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 10:09 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 09:54 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Everyone knows the west in the most "inclusive" place on Earth, a vast non ethnostate, where there only inherit evil is blue eyes.

Care to elaborate?

You never heard of Kalergi or the 65' immigration act, 90' immigration act etc.

Sure, I'm just asking for you to fully flesh out what you mean.

"Women in wars and the workplace" and "only evil is blue eyes." I think I know where you're headed, I just want to see you get there.

Google "blue eyed devils vs brown eyed devils" The USA last year had the lowest birth rate of "white" babies ever in history of the USA. Do your own research.

I'm asking for YOUR full thoughts, only research I can do on that is right here.

(01-18-2019 11:09 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  I don't think the people throwing up their hands and going "but it's just a song" really get it. Culture is constantly under attack and at a certain point it will touch something you care about. This is sort of a dominance thing. Normal people don't give a flying **** about inclusion in leisure activity. It's a lot like title 9 laws. Why does anyone care whether a university allocates more or less funding to women's sport? It's entirely voluntary.

There's an ideology of loosely connected fringe weirdos who view everything as dialectical and a struggle between oppressors and the oppressed. They base their world view on the idea that only group identity matters. That's basically what intersectionality is. If your group A, you have so much privilege and group B has less, that means you have to give up some of your equity to them. They're further down the oppression grid than you. It's a retarded worldview, one encouraged by academia and the corporate world unfortunately. I call it that because in order to fight past injustice like sexism and racism, they segregate people into categories by race and gender.

Not to mention that by their reasoning, it would be ethical if upon seeing the inequity of newborns with congenital heart conditions I took it upon myself to stab the healthy children in the maternity ward in the chest to level the playing field.

None of it is "fringe" weirdos. It is highly organized.

(01-18-2019 11:31 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 10:59 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 10:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 10:09 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  Care to elaborate?

You never heard of Kalergi or the 65' immigration act, 90' immigration act etc.

Sure, I'm just asking for you to fully flesh out what you mean.

"Women in wars and the workplace" and "only evil is blue eyes." I think I know where you're headed, I just want to see you get there.

Google "blue eyed devils vs brown eyed devils" The USA last year had the lowest birth rate of "white" babies ever in history of the USA. Do your own research.

I'm asking for YOUR full thoughts, only research I can do on that is right here.

My thoughts are mine. No more important than another. Just do your own research,

(01-18-2019 11:35 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:31 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 10:59 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 10:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  You never heard of Kalergi or the 65' immigration act, 90' immigration act etc.

Sure, I'm just asking for you to fully flesh out what you mean.

"Women in wars and the workplace" and "only evil is blue eyes." I think I know where you're headed, I just want to see you get there.

Google "blue eyed devils vs brown eyed devils" The USA last year had the lowest birth rate of "white" babies ever in history of the USA. Do your own research.

I'm asking for YOUR full thoughts, only research I can do on that is right here.

My thoughts are mine. No more important than another. Just do your own research,

But isn't that the point of a discussion. I'm obviously not interested in the white supremacist results I got from googling what you suggested, I'm more interested in your concern of a lack of "white babies", or why women aren't deserving of certain "inclusiveness " because they weren't historically part of wars or the workplace.

You've dropped plenty of breadcrumbs, just curious if youd like to clarify since you've felt the need to bring these points up at all.

(01-18-2019 11:42 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:35 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:31 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 10:59 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  Sure, I'm just asking for you to fully flesh out what you mean.

"Women in wars and the workplace" and "only evil is blue eyes." I think I know where you're headed, I just want to see you get there.

Google "blue eyed devils vs brown eyed devils" The USA last year had the lowest birth rate of "white" babies ever in history of the USA. Do your own research.

I'm asking for YOUR full thoughts, only research I can do on that is right here.

My thoughts are mine. No more important than another. Just do your own research,

But isn't that the point of a discussion. I'm obviously not interested in the white supremacist results I got from googling what you suggested, I'm more interested in your concern of a lack of "white babies", or why women aren't deserving of certain "inclusiveness " because they weren't historically part of wars or the workplace.

You've dropped plenty of breadcrumbs, just curious if youd like to clarify since you've felt the need to bring these points up at all.

I never said that. Anyone person can sing a song. Why would you suggest otherwise? Are you really going down the he she it alley?

(01-18-2019 11:46 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:42 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:35 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:31 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Google "blue eyed devils vs brown eyed devils" The USA last year had the lowest birth rate of "white" babies ever in history of the USA. Do your own research.

I'm asking for YOUR full thoughts, only research I can do on that is right here.

My thoughts are mine. No more important than another. Just do your own research,

But isn't that the point of a discussion. I'm obviously not interested in the white supremacist results I got from googling what you suggested, I'm more interested in your concern of a lack of "white babies", or why women aren't deserving of certain "inclusiveness " because they weren't historically part of wars or the workplace.

You've dropped plenty of breadcrumbs, just curious if youd like to clarify since you've felt the need to bring these points up at all.

I never said that. Anyone person can sing a song. Why would you suggest otherwise? Are you really going down the he she it alley?

My mistake, let me clarify, I assumed you meant more women should have died in wars or worked in the workplace to be included in the lyrics. I didn't think that you meant they should have for them to sing the song in general.

(01-18-2019 11:42 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:35 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:31 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 10:59 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  Sure, I'm just asking for you to fully flesh out what you mean.

"Women in wars and the workplace" and "only evil is blue eyes." I think I know where you're headed, I just want to see you get there.

Google "blue eyed devils vs brown eyed devils" The USA last year had the lowest birth rate of "white" babies ever in history of the USA. Do your own research.

I'm asking for YOUR full thoughts, only research I can do on that is right here.

My thoughts are mine. No more important than another. Just do your own research,

But isn't that the point of a discussion. I'm obviously not interested in the white supremacist results I got from googling what you suggested, I'm more interested in your concern of a lack of "white babies", or why women aren't deserving of certain "inclusiveness " because they weren't historically part of wars or the workplace.

You've dropped plenty of breadcrumbs, just curious if youd like to clarify since you've felt the need to bring these points up at all.

I think you're looking at it precisely backwards. Why do women need organizational backing to be included, are you of the mind they're too weak and devoid of merit to claim their own place?
Why should non-whites be allocated greater support/have the bar lowered in contrast to their white peers? Do you view them as the untermensch?

There is a discriminatory factor, but it's coming from the left, not the right. Mind you, I'm asking these questions rhetorically, not as a jab at you or anyone else on the board.

(01-18-2019 11:49 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:46 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:42 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:35 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:31 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  I'm asking for YOUR full thoughts, only research I can do on that is right here.

My thoughts are mine. No more important than another. Just do your own research,

But isn't that the point of a discussion. I'm obviously not interested in the white supremacist results I got from googling what you suggested, I'm more interested in your concern of a lack of "white babies", or why women aren't deserving of certain "inclusiveness " because they weren't historically part of wars or the workplace.

You've dropped plenty of breadcrumbs, just curious if youd like to clarify since you've felt the need to bring these points up at all.

I never said that. Anyone person can sing a song. Why would you suggest otherwise? Are you really going down the he she it alley?

My mistake, let me clarify, I assumed you meant more women should have died in wars or worked in the workplace to be included in the lyrics. I didn't think that you meant they should have for them to sing the song in general.

Nope.

(01-18-2019 11:53 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:42 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:35 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:31 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Google "blue eyed devils vs brown eyed devils" The USA last year had the lowest birth rate of "white" babies ever in history of the USA. Do your own research.

I'm asking for YOUR full thoughts, only research I can do on that is right here.

My thoughts are mine. No more important than another. Just do your own research,

But isn't that the point of a discussion. I'm obviously not interested in the white supremacist results I got from googling what you suggested, I'm more interested in your concern of a lack of "white babies", or why women aren't deserving of certain "inclusiveness " because they weren't historically part of wars or the workplace.

You've dropped plenty of breadcrumbs, just curious if youd like to clarify since you've felt the need to bring these points up at all.

I think you're looking at it precisely backwards. Why do women need organizational backing to be included, are you of the mind they're too weak and devoid of merit to claim their own place?
Why should non-whites be allocated greater support/have the bar lowered in contrast to their white peers? Do you view them as the untermensch?

Their is a discriminatory factor, but it's coming from the left, not the right.

Just like our 'groper in chief' you are too f'in stupid to be given any credibility.

(01-18-2019 11:53 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:42 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:35 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:31 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Google "blue eyed devils vs brown eyed devils" The USA last year had the lowest birth rate of "white" babies ever in history of the USA. Do your own research.

I'm asking for YOUR full thoughts, only research I can do on that is right here.

My thoughts are mine. No more important than another. Just do your own research,

But isn't that the point of a discussion. I'm obviously not interested in the white supremacist results I got from googling what you suggested, I'm more interested in your concern of a lack of "white babies", or why women aren't deserving of certain "inclusiveness " because they weren't historically part of wars or the workplace.

You've dropped plenty of breadcrumbs, just curious if youd like to clarify since you've felt the need to bring these points up at all.

I think you're looking at it precisely backwards. Why do women need organizational backing to be included, are you of the mind they're too weak and devoid of merit to claim their own place?
Why should non-whites be allocated greater support/have the bar lowered in contrast to their white peers? Do you view them as the untermensch?

Their is a discriminatory factor, but it's coming from the left, not the right.

I haven't brought up the left or the right. Nor have I meant or said anything you insinuated I said or meant. In fact, my only goal was for Superfly to clarify his comments.

(01-18-2019 09:35 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  "Nope"

Just stop. It is a song or cheer anyone can sing it. When women do their fair share of dying in wars and in the workplace we can change the lyrics.

So I misunderstood this?

(01-19-2019 12:08 AM)gerhard911 Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:53 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:42 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:35 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:31 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  I'm asking for YOUR full thoughts, only research I can do on that is right here.

My thoughts are mine. No more important than another. Just do your own research,

But isn't that the point of a discussion. I'm obviously not interested in the white supremacist results I got from googling what you suggested, I'm more interested in your concern of a lack of "white babies", or why women aren't deserving of certain "inclusiveness " because they weren't historically part of wars or the workplace.

You've dropped plenty of breadcrumbs, just curious if youd like to clarify since you've felt the need to bring these points up at all.

I think you're looking at it precisely backwards. Why do women need organizational backing to be included, are you of the mind they're too weak and devoid of merit to claim their own place?
Why should non-whites be allocated greater support/have the bar lowered in contrast to their white peers? Do you view them as the untermensch?

Their is a discriminatory factor, but it's coming from the left, not the right.

Just like our 'groper in chief' you are too f'in stupid to be given any credibility.

Hey dingus, I had already edited the post before you replied. By the way, I'm typing this on a phone with auto-correct. Do you want to apologize like a normal human being, or ramble like some delusional shaman about how POTUS eats babies when no one's looking and somehow that's my fault?

(01-18-2019 11:53 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:42 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:35 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:31 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Google "blue eyed devils vs brown eyed devils" The USA last year had the lowest birth rate of "white" babies ever in history of the USA. Do your own research.

I'm asking for YOUR full thoughts, only research I can do on that is right here.

My thoughts are mine. No more important than another. Just do your own research,

But isn't that the point of a discussion. I'm obviously not interested in the white supremacist results I got from googling what you suggested, I'm more interested in your concern of a lack of "white babies", or why women aren't deserving of certain "inclusiveness " because they weren't historically part of wars or the workplace.

You've dropped plenty of breadcrumbs, just curious if youd like to clarify since you've felt the need to bring these points up at all.

I think you're looking at it precisely backwards. Why do women need organizational backing to be included, are you of the mind they're too weak and devoid of merit to claim their own place?
Why should non-whites be allocated greater support/have the bar lowered in contrast to their white peers? Do you view them as the untermensch?

There is a discriminatory factor, but it's coming from the left, not the right. Mind you, I'm asking these questions rhetorically, not as a jab at you or anyone else on the board.

Spot on.

(01-19-2019 12:09 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:53 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:42 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:35 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:31 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  I'm asking for YOUR full thoughts, only research I can do on that is right here.

My thoughts are mine. No more important than another. Just do your own research,

But isn't that the point of a discussion. I'm obviously not interested in the white supremacist results I got from googling what you suggested, I'm more interested in your concern of a lack of "white babies", or why women aren't deserving of certain "inclusiveness " because they weren't historically part of wars or the workplace.

You've dropped plenty of breadcrumbs, just curious if youd like to clarify since you've felt the need to bring these points up at all.

I think you're looking at it precisely backwards. Why do women need organizational backing to be included, are you of the mind they're too weak and devoid of merit to claim their own place?
Why should non-whites be allocated greater support/have the bar lowered in contrast to their white peers? Do you view them as the untermensch?

Their is a discriminatory factor, but it's coming from the left, not the right.

I haven't brought up the left or the right. Nor have I meant or said anything you insinuated I said or meant. In fact, my only goal was for Superfly to clarify his comments.

Semantics, in this case replace right and left with song preservationists and editors.
Why do women need a governmental body to change the words of a song most don't care about?

(01-19-2019 12:08 AM)gerhard911 Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:53 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:42 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:35 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:31 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  I'm asking for YOUR full thoughts, only research I can do on that is right here.

My thoughts are mine. No more important than another. Just do your own research,

But isn't that the point of a discussion. I'm obviously not interested in the white supremacist results I got from googling what you suggested, I'm more interested in your concern of a lack of "white babies", or why women aren't deserving of certain "inclusiveness " because they weren't historically part of wars or the workplace.

You've dropped plenty of breadcrumbs, just curious if youd like to clarify since you've felt the need to bring these points up at all.

I think you're looking at it precisely backwards. Why do women need organizational backing to be included, are you of the mind they're too weak and devoid of merit to claim their own place?
Why should non-whites be allocated greater support/have the bar lowered in contrast to their white peers? Do you view them as the untermensch?

Their is a discriminatory factor, but it's coming from the left, not the right.

Just like our 'groper in chief' you are too f'in stupid to be given any credibility.

Right on Clinton never did that,

(01-19-2019 12:14 AM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(01-19-2019 12:09 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:53 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:42 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 11:35 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  My thoughts are mine. No more important than another. Just do your own research,

But isn't that the point of a discussion. I'm obviously not interested in the white supremacist results I got from googling what you suggested, I'm more interested in your concern of a lack of "white babies", or why women aren't deserving of certain "inclusiveness " because they weren't historically part of wars or the workplace.

You've dropped plenty of breadcrumbs, just curious if youd like to clarify since you've felt the need to bring these points up at all.

I think you're looking at it precisely backwards. Why do women need organizational backing to be included, are you of the mind they're too weak and devoid of merit to claim their own place?
Why should non-whites be allocated greater support/have the bar lowered in contrast to their white peers? Do you view them as the untermensch?

Their is a discriminatory factor, but it's coming from the left, not the right.

I haven't brought up the left or the right. Nor have I meant or said anything you insinuated I said or meant. In fact, my only goal was for Superfly to clarify his comments.

Semantics, in this case replace right and left with song preservationists and editors.
Why do women need a governmental body to change the words of a song most don't care about?

My assumption would be that the women on the governmental body (and maybe some guys) see an opportunity to effect the change and are using their position to do so. However, I'm not sure why that's your sticking point with me.

I'm simply trying to understand what Superfly has been tiptoeing around all night.