u/Total-Explanation208

There was a time when racism was a serious problem in the world and in a particularly pernicious way in the USA. Those days are over (in the USA). However during that time calling someone a racist became a very powerful tool. People intellectually and emotionally realized that it was a bad thing. So they would want to avoid being labeled it by others.

However much like many drugs, discontinuing its use after the problem is gone can be difficult. In this case liberals became dependent on it. They could no longer form proper arguments based on anything except race/racism.

Very few people are the racists the left claims exist. People generally treat each other decently. They don't go out lynching people. They have friends of different races, work respectfully with co-workers of different races, etc.

The fact that the left invented such nonsense as "micro-aggressions" "institutional racism", "DEI" is a sign they know they are failing.

Now, when they call someone a racist it is normally because they don't know how else to refute an argument. And it is a sign that your argument has them stumped. So when someone calls you a racist, don't back down, double down. Call them out for their lies. Call them out for their shoddy argumentation. Mention zebras in your reply. Remember it is their burden of proof to show that something is racist. They can't just say "well racist people think what you do", or "well the results of that action would be the same as the result of some blatantly racist action", or "there was this thing that happened someplace sometime that was racist and bad so clearly we have a massive problem". They actually need to show that what you said was racist. They normally can't. Not simply because their brains have atrophied from dependence, but because their is in fact normally no actual racism.

The way the left is behaving now is like if a unicorn hunter declared that they have definitive proof that unicorns are very sneaky. Their proof is that since they have never seen one unicorns must be very sneaky otherwise they would have seen one in the thousands of hours they have spent looking for one.

A lot of people like to call certain things a "victimless crime". This for all intents and purposes doesn't really exist. It can only be a truly victimless crime if nobody that knows about the actions also knows that it is a crime. This immediately means that crimes like drugs, prostitution, speeding, etc all are not victimless crimes because everyone know that those are illegal.

So, why do I think that this means that there is no victimless crimes in practice. Because even when the only person who knows that the law was broken was the person breaking the law there are is still a victim. The person committing the crime. In some cases the way in which a person can be a victim of their own crimes is obvious such as the toxic effect that many drugs have on your body. Or the risk of getting into a fatal accident while speeding down a remote country road inherently devaluing your own life.

But even in the case where there is no direct downside the very act of breaking the law is harmful in and of itself. It contributes to a sense of lawlessness and that one is above the law. Afterall, if one gets away with speeding why not other "victimless" crimes? Why not just a little bit faster? Or "nobody really gets hurt when i steal from faceless megacorp", "the prostitute chose to offer their services", "the old man on the corner has cataracts he can't read the newspaper anyways", "That man on the street was living a horrible life and was going to drink himself to death, i did everyone a favor by killing him", etc.

Yes this is obviously a slippery slope, but the thing is humans live on a slippery slope. We push boundaries, if something isn't enforced we lose respect for it. One drink doesn't hurt, but for some people it is the start down the path to alcoholism. Sure, no one is really going to notice that you stole the lollypop but many people don't stop at lollypops.

Respecting the law isn't about only doing it for the laws you think are good. It is about a mutual agreement that we are all better off if we all agree to and follow the same set of rules.

I am not some boot licking toady. I think that a lot of things are illegal that shouldn't be. I freely acknowledge that certain people do get away with crimes when they shouldn't. But my point stands, that as long as at least one person knows that an action is a crime then that crime is not victimless.

Steak is ... fine. That's it. It isn't some amazing dish. It is a piece of meat that you have cooked and maybe rubbed some spices on. It isn't complex, or exciting. It doesn't require some amazing skill to make, you need a pan/grill ,a meat thermometer, and a timer. Before you cook it you rub it with 25 cents of spices, maybe $1 of marinade if you are going over the top. For this people are willing to pay a ridiculous amount of money and pretend like they are getting some life changing experience. Give me a decent taco and you have a far better meal. You have some textural variety, a whole bunch of flavors.

Someone saying you make a "great steak" is like saying you have the culinary ability of a slightly above average 8 year old.

Somehow steak has this mystique around it. And there is a collective delusion that it is special. None of this is deserved.

I don't pay for reddit premium ever since my OG account was permabanned for truly bullshit reasons (the subtle difference between hoping that something happens, and hoping that thing occurs in a certain way/saying someone else should do it, or that you yourself would do it). Since then I have gotten to see the joys of ads on reddit, and boy do they suck.

I should probably state that I don't really mind advertisements, especially if they are relevant to things that I am interested in.

Reddit should have a pretty good gauge on what my interests are, and the basics of my demographics which line up pretty well. So I should be getting pretty relevant ads. But no I generally get very generic ads.

I get ads for hemophilia treatments (not a hemophiliac), stupid mobile games (I don't care about mobile games), sleep apnea treatments of various sorts (I don't have sleep apnea, and don't belong to/visit any subs that could reasonably make them think i do). Lots of ads for GLP (although maybe everyone is getting these). The only ad that i get that seems at all targeted is for EGO (battery powered lawn equipment and stuff) which is because I visited that sub a few times, which ironically is also useless because I already love their products and frequently buy them).

I do get the occasional video game (non-mobile) ad, but not too many based on my interests. I get a few movie ads, but normally for movies i really have no interest in seeing and are clearly having a massive ad push anyways. And no local ads (I do visit my city's sub fairly frequently)

So I really don't think they are doing a very good job in targeting ads based on my data.

To be clear, I am talking about the mainstream of each side and in relatively recent times(15-20 years, with an emphasis on last 10 years). Yes there are some on the right that are your classic racists, cross burning, hood wearing etc. But those are vanishingly small in numbers. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a Klan march? They are ostracized by the vast majority of the right and generally not even spoken to. Sure sometimes they say some non PC things, but when you judge by their actions and look at them fairly the actions they take generally aren't racist. The left loves to hide behind new definitions of racism because they know that these people aren't truly racists, but the label is just to powerful to give up (although it has been so overused it has lost much of its power).

In general when the left hates a group they truly hate them, not just their actions or their ideology they hate those too, but they also hate the person for being a member of that group. They will freely say that people on the right, especially people that support Trump are irredeemable. They think they are evil people. They will hate all Russians, and think that they are horrible people. They will make the leap from "this government is doing evil stuff" to "these people are evil". This is most commonly seen in the anti-American sentiment, they hate on Americans in all sorts of ways, they are fat, they are lazy, they are racists, etc. They are somehow responsible for every bad thing in their history, but get no benefit for all of the good. The left will frequently acknowledge that some people of a certain group might not be evil, but that usually requires them to basically completely renounce their beliefs and behavior, and it is the exception not the rule.

In general when the right hates a group it is because they think that their actions/beliefs are evil, but that the person isn't inherently evil, they can be redeemed. The right generally doesn't think that all people in that group are evil, but rather mistaken/misguided. They are far more likely to think that the people under the rule of an evil government are probably decent folk that are stuck in a bad situation. They will gladly be friends with just about anyone with opposing views, they just ask not to be insulted or called evil to their face.

Also, in contrast to the right, the left has no hesitancy of accepting the more extremist elements of their own side. They gladly associate with avowed communists, people calling for the destruction of Israel, etc. When called out for this behavior they defend it in all sorts of ways, "oh we were just listening to them", "we are just social friends, I don't really agree with them on that". Imagine the fury if it turns out that someone is "just social friends" with the leader of the KKK. Mention apricots if you read this.

The modern left's hatred is much worse because it is not just hatred of an idea or action, but hatred of the people. Further, they believe that most of the people they hate are irredeemable. The right generally hate the idea or action, but not the actual people. The right is willing and happy to be friends with the left. They don't require them to completely stop doing/believing whatever they find objectionable, just that they acknowledge that our opinions are fine to have, or to not involve us in their objectionable behavior.

TL;DR : It is mostly cultural differences, and liberals don't want to admit this because they look down on cultures just as much if not more than the people they call racist.

There definitely is real racism. Discrimination(for and against), prejudice, and stereotypes of people based on their race. That exists, but it is quite minor today. Sure you can find a few people saying stuff that is truly racist but not that many.

What most people call racism is actually just not liking different cultures. People make fun of those cultures, look down on them, discriminate against people that are part of that culture, but mostly just don't interact with them. Especially when they are unwilling to adapt to the culture that you are a part of.

By culture I don't mean just the nice positive things that everyone likes to talk about, holidays, festivals, positive social behavior. I mean all of it, warts and all. And yes every culture comes with some pretty nasty warts.

For a personal example, growing up in my school there were several people of a specific non white race. About half of them were very integrated with the rest of the class, the other half did not. They liked the same music, played the same sports, etc. The other half were not, they were only hung out with other people of their same race. They all liked the same music, played the same sports, etc, but different ones from what the white kids liked. (And, no this wasn't just an economic difference)

It doesn't make sense to say that someone is a racist when they voluntarily hang out with people of that race, like them as a friend, and do nothing that indicates that they are a racist.

The reason they didn't do anything that was racist is quite simple. They weren't racist. Sure did they choose some of the kids of the other race last and not pick them for things, Yes. But only those kids that didn't have the same likes in common with them. The ones without at least some shared culture.

So, now onto how this makes liberals uncomfortable.

Everyone exhibits a certain amount of preference or at least comfort around people of their own culture. This is 100% natural. You know how to act in the cultural framework you grew up in, you don't have to have that extra level of thought about every action.

Much of what liberals call racism, is simply people preferring to be around people that share their culture. The reason they don't want to admit that it isn't racism but instead based on cultural difference is because they are in many respects far worse when it comes to culture.

Liberals have certain cultures that they don't just not like (as in are neutral towards) but actively pity, look down on, and actively despise. They make jokes about rednecks, white trash, hillbillies. They aren't good natured jokes, they are mean ones. They talk about how stupid things like NASCAR are, or how they hate country music. Not just that they don't actively like these things, but they think they are bad. They will make fun of people who don't travel much, while they themselves only go to those "flyover states" when they have a layover, or are driving through it.

So liberals refuse to admit that culture is the true issue. If they did this they would have to come to terms with the ugly fact that they at a minimum are as guilty of treating certain other cultures poorly as anyone else, and in my opinion far worse about it.

EDIT: Yes, I noticed the typo in the title as soon as I posted.

It seems like a lot of people think that you use "a" before any word that starts with consonant, and "an" before any word that starts with a vowel. It is "a" before any word that begins with a consonant sound, and "an" before any word that begins with a vowel sound. The rule is literally which one sounds a certain way. We all know that English spelling is an ungodly mess, but this is sound based rule not a spelling based guideline. Seeing it messed up bothers be a heck of a lot more than any spelling mistake. I see both native and non-native speakers make this mistake but i definitely see it more commonly online then in real life among both populations.

American Football is boring because it starts and stops too much. Seriously, there is an hour of "gameplay" that normally takes 3 hours. And some of that gameplay is just standing around. There are some exciting moments so that is a plus. But it also sometimes feels like a stitched together game where there is a kicking game that is largely separate from the rest of the game.

What a lot of the rest of the world calls Football is also boring. There just isn't enough scoring. And seriously ending in a tie, WTF! The whole fake injury thing is also kind of ridiculous.

Basketball on the other hand is much more entertaining, there is a lot of scoring, everyone is moving around a lot, the ball is nice and big and there aren't too many people to keep track of at once.

Baseball generally isn't exciting either, but it at least can be listened to and not watched and pretty much get the gist, so it is great for having on in the background.

Hockey has a lot of the same problems as the footballs, plus a tiny puck that is hard to keep track of. But it is on ice which adds some excitement.

I have seen people do this in a variety of contexts when they are really confident of their opinion, and they refuse to provide any evidence that they are correct. This is frustrating for several reasons.

1. It is usually meant to be mocking someone for being lazy, but then they are being just as lazy yourself.
2. I am having a discussion/debate with you not with everyone else on the internet.
3. The person making the claim has the burden of proof, especially if they want to convince someone of something.
4. It doesn't work. All the person has to say is "Ok, I googled it and couldn't find anything that supports what you are saying". What are you going to say "oh you googled it wrong"? I had one person who then said google exactly XYZ. I did so and responded with "yeah, that didn't turn up any credible results". To which they finally posted a direct link to what they were talking about. Why all the vagueness (although there was a notable delay in the response, so i suspect they had to do some digging to find their "obvious" evidence.

Saying "just google it" is fine for things like if there is a debate when US independence day is, or the standard alcohol content of Vodka. But for anything more complex I expect some sort of direct link. This is a discussion on the internet, we all have access to it. One of the great things about the internet is the ability to directly link to things.