So you are saying people shouldn't support Marx's ideals because he was racist.... as you support Trump..... and you have the nerve to whine about hypocrisy???!!!!!
-
ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Was Karl Marx a racist?
- Thread starter 'Boogieman'
- Start date
'Boogieman'
Well-known member
So you are saying people shouldn't support Marx's ideals because he was racist....
No, I'm saying just about everyone on the extreme left is a hypocrite. Support whatever you want.
While sidestepping the obvious hypocrisy pointed out to you...
Sounds hypocritical.
Sounds hypocritical.
At some point they may actually consider
who provides what it is they so enjoy.
The consternation will only last a moment before
they slip back into the warm familiar comfort of
an environment they were trained to love and
respond to. Don't touch that dial.
Ahh - interesting - I came up with this little ditty - whilst researching Leon Trotsky -
truth or lies? -
truth or lies? -
Mirrriam- Webster takes it back to 1902
Was taken from racist to race, which included the following :
1560s, "people descended from a common ancestor, class of persons allied by common ancestry," from Middle French race, earlier razza "race, breed, lineage, family" (16c.), possibly from Italian razza, which is of unknown origin (cognate with Spanish and Portuguese raza). Etymologists say it has no connection with Latin radix "root," though they admit this might have influenced the "tribe, nation" sense, and race was a 15c. form of radix in Middle English (via Old French räiz,räis). Klein suggests the words derive from Arabic ra's "head, beginning, origin" (compare Hebrew rosh). Original senses in English included "wines with characteristic flavor" (1520), "group of people with common occupation" (c. 1500), and "generation" (1540s). The meaning developed via the sense of "tribe, nation, or people regarded as of common stock" to "an ethnical stock, one of the great divisions of mankind having in common certain physical peculiarities" by 1774 (though as OED points out, even among anthropologists there never has been an accepted classification of these).
race (v.)
c. 1200, rasen "to rush," from a Scandinavian source akin to the source of race (n.1), reinforced by the noun in English and by Old English cognate ræsan "to rush headlong, hasten, enter rashly." Meaning "run swiftly" is from 1757. Meaning "run in competition against" is from 1809. Transitive sense of "cause to run" is from 1860. In reference to an engine, etc., "run with uncontrolled speed," from 1862. Related: Raced; racing.
race (n.3)
c. 1300, "strong current of water," a specific sense of race (n.1), which then denoted any forward movement or swift running, from Old Norse ras in its sense of "a rushing of water." Via Norman French the word entered French as ras, which might have given English race its specialized meaning of "channel of a stream" (especially an artificial one, to a mill, etc.), which is recorded in English from 1560s.
Here is the url of the reference:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/race?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_3255
Was taken from racist to race, which included the following :
1560s, "people descended from a common ancestor, class of persons allied by common ancestry," from Middle French race, earlier razza "race, breed, lineage, family" (16c.), possibly from Italian razza, which is of unknown origin (cognate with Spanish and Portuguese raza). Etymologists say it has no connection with Latin radix "root," though they admit this might have influenced the "tribe, nation" sense, and race was a 15c. form of radix in Middle English (via Old French räiz,räis). Klein suggests the words derive from Arabic ra's "head, beginning, origin" (compare Hebrew rosh). Original senses in English included "wines with characteristic flavor" (1520), "group of people with common occupation" (c. 1500), and "generation" (1540s). The meaning developed via the sense of "tribe, nation, or people regarded as of common stock" to "an ethnical stock, one of the great divisions of mankind having in common certain physical peculiarities" by 1774 (though as OED points out, even among anthropologists there never has been an accepted classification of these).
Just being a Negro doesn't qualify you to understand the race situation any more than being sick makes you an expert on medicine. [Dick Gregory, 1964]
In mid-20c. U.S. music catalogues, it means "Negro." Old English þeode meant both "race, folk, nation" and "language;" as a verb, geþeodan meant "to unite, to join."race (v.)
c. 1200, rasen "to rush," from a Scandinavian source akin to the source of race (n.1), reinforced by the noun in English and by Old English cognate ræsan "to rush headlong, hasten, enter rashly." Meaning "run swiftly" is from 1757. Meaning "run in competition against" is from 1809. Transitive sense of "cause to run" is from 1860. In reference to an engine, etc., "run with uncontrolled speed," from 1862. Related: Raced; racing.
race (n.3)
c. 1300, "strong current of water," a specific sense of race (n.1), which then denoted any forward movement or swift running, from Old Norse ras in its sense of "a rushing of water." Via Norman French the word entered French as ras, which might have given English race its specialized meaning of "channel of a stream" (especially an artificial one, to a mill, etc.), which is recorded in English from 1560s.
Here is the url of the reference:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/race?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_3255
everyone?
the word was found in english at least 20 years prior.
i thought i found that out on this forum?
but...that is when they WANT you to believe it was coined. can't smear Karl (with a "K") without it.
I would argue the hypocrisy on the far right is probably equivalent to the hypocrisy of the far left.
I would also argue that every career politician on both sides are also hypocrites.
I would argue the hypocrisy on the far right is probably equivalent to the hypocrisy of the far left.
i'd argue there's no contest, republicans take the cake for hypocrisy.
the difference is with republicans it's self serving hypocrisy,the democrats think they're being helpful with their hypocrisy...I would argue the hypocrisy on the far right is probably equivalent to the hypocrisy of the far left.
I would also argue that every career politician on both sides are also hypocrites.
great idea to help the homeless for instance,rings a bit hollow when you have more than one home or a freezer full of artisinal ice cream...but still better than "fuck 'em,i got mine"
Pre 60s democrats were segregationist, Jim Crow , racist, KKK members.Not to mention confederate slaveholders. I personally don't think they ever stopped being racist, but at least they tried to hide it some. The policies never stopped hurting blacks, to this day. I only have to look at what party is in control of 17 of the top 20 most violent cities in America. Of the top 20, 1 is run by a republican. If democrats can't run a city, how can they run a country of 330 million?
The religious right strayed from some constitutional rights, which is shameful. Criticism is waranted. Ultimately, their is no comparison between the 2.
Have you ever had artisinal ice cream?
I had some in northern california that was absolutely amazing, out of this world, made by aliens, incredible ice cream.
probably illegal aliens! build that frost free wall!Have you ever had artisinal ice cream?
I had some in northern california that was absolutely amazing, out of this world, made by aliens, incredible ice cream.
Vote for trump!
The hero of our nation!
The hero of our nation!
Latest posts
-
-
-
question for sam the skunkman on the original haze- Latest: harvestreaper
-
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
question for sam the skunkman on the original haze
- Latest: harvestreaper
-
-
