Study suggests Dating Apps can stop "Sexual Racism" because people shouldn't be allowed to date who they like?

[Deus Voltage]

17 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Hi, gay person here.

 

Yea that tactic doesn't work with me. Try something more elaborate (and substantive). 

 

17 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Guess what, if its a law and you break it, that makes you a criminal. Like, you know, everyone who smokes weed where its illegal is doing something criminal in the eyes of the law.

Guess what, definitions of criminals ( a highly complex and tedious procedure) differs on geographical basis. Why? Because laws differ from one country to another, thusly making the categorization of criminals from a singular vantage point inadequate.

 

17 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

There are lots of things deemed criminal all over the world that are absurd, but strictly speaking, you are a criminal if you're breaking the law.

Again, doesn't mean that laws can't (and aren't) debated on a constant basis and changed accordingly to keep up with the times.

17 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Of course they arent implying that all laws are moral and just. Your purposeful conflation in an attempt to perform a character assassination is disgraceful and sobering.

The premise of your argumentation tells me that you're using a highly deceptive framing. I'm debating the validity of defining people who committed non offensive "crimes" as "criminals", not whether or not breaking the law will get you into jail.

 

I'm actually curious about how you'd feel if  (hypothetically) someone got in jail in Canada for for not using zers and those sorts of pronouns that the right fears so much. The double standard (if there is one) would make for such an interesting debate. 

17 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Try formulating an argument without resortin to argumentum ad hominem.

Resorting*

 

And I thought (from reading all your previous comments, particularly the anti SJW rhetoric) that you weren't the type to feel offended/ triggered by verbal discourse? I guess it's only wrong if people on the other side do it huh? I wonder why, oh right, you said it yourself on page 5:

 

Quote

That reason is called: hypocrisy.

 

[LAwLz]

13 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

Okay so let me just get this out of the way, me using "big words" has nothing to do with the actual substance of my arguments. Debate me on those merits, otherwise you're just pulling straws (which there is no need for, unless you're just looking to score extra bunny points).

But I did respond to your arguments.

 

15 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

Second, you completely missed the point with regards to nuance. Data can very easily be corrupted by factors that are uncounted for, such as the role of police decision making in terms of AI accuracy. 

Nuance regarding what exactly?

And what factors are not accounted for with the data I have referenced? Even if there is data not accounted for, it is the best we got, and you can't just assume it is incorrect without providing any evidence for it.

 

17 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

Another thing that you failed to mention was the highly questionable algorithmic results of COMPAS as discussed here:

I did not mention it because it has never been bought up until now, and I have never made any arguments regarding the accuracy of the algorithm.

You will not be able to find me endorsing or calling COMPAS accurate anywhere in this thread. If you think my arguments have been that COMPAS is good then you have completely missed the point of everything I have said so far, and I strongly recommend you reread my posts.

 

19 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

Lastly, you still sticking to the belief that people who commit consensual sodomy are criminals is not only baffling, but also sobering (at best) and highly concerning (at worst). I doubt you care though, you conduct yourself with apathy to my arguments so I might as well debate an air balloon. 

It is not a belief. It is a fact.

If you commit a crime you are a criminal. That is the definition of the word as written in multiple dictionaries.

You are trying to argue that you disagree with some laws, and therefore people who do illegal deeds should not be called criminals. Sorry, but they are criminals. Whether or not they SHOULD be criminals is a completely different debate.

Is possessing weed a crime in some places? Yes, and if you have it in those places you are a criminal.

Should possessing weed be legal? Completely different discussion which has no place in this thread.

 

 

I am apathetic towards your arguments because they contain about as much substance as the air balloon you facetiously said you might as well be debating.

 

 

Your arguments so far seem, to me at least, to have been this:

You're not a criminal if you commit a crime, if you think the law is incorrect.

[Amazonsucks]

18 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

 

Yea that tactic doesn't work with me. Try something more elaborate (and substantive). 

 

Guess what, definitions of criminals ( a highly complex and tedious procedure) differs on geographical basis. Why? Because laws differ from one country to another, thusly making the categorization of criminals from a singular vantage point inadequate.

 

Again, doesn't mean that laws can't (and aren't) debated on a constant basis and changed accordingly to keep up with the times.

The premise of your argumentation tells me that you're using a highly deceptive framing. I'm debating the validity of defining people who committed non offensive "crimes" as "criminals", not whether or not breaking the law will get you into jail.

 

I'm actually curious about how you'd feel if  (hypothetically) someone got in jail in Canada for for not using zers and those sorts of pronouns that the right fears so much. The double standard (if there is one) would make for such an interesting debate. 

Resorting*

 

And I thought (from reading all your previous comments, particularly the anti SJW rhetoric) that you weren't the type to feel offended/ triggered by verbal discourse? I guess it's only wrong if people on the other side do it huh? I wonder why, oh right, you said it yourself on page 5:

 

 

Im the one using deceptive framing? Ok.

 

More elaborate and substantive like what? Youre the one saying its sobering for someone else to correctly use the word "criminal".

 

I would go with what Jordan Peterson has to say about compelled speech in Canada. He has it spot on. Like much of what he says. Canada has collectively lost its mind.

 

How am i being hypocritical btw? Someone is labled a criminal if they commit crimes: i.e. break the law, no matter how stupid that law is, or whether its enforced.

 

That means that people can do the morally correct thing and still be doing something illegal and CRIMINAL. Its morally correct to be a criminal in many cases where there are unjust laws.

 

The USA was kind of founded on that very principle.

 

And im not offended by verbal discourse. I merely pointed out the absurdity of your attempt to character assassinate the other poster by saying its "sobering" that they can use words correctly and understand context.

 

Youre insinuation was that they are anti homosexual(i dont say homophobic because being afraid is different than being against someone). As a homosexual, i find nothing offensive about their commentary or use of words.

 

Are you also gay or are you one of those people who gets offended on the behalf of a group you arent even a part of because of your conditioning? Or are you just doing it for effect?

 

In either case, you needn't be offended by the objective fact that under the law it was considered criminal until recently. They were stupid, unjust laws.

 

[Guest]

On 11/7/2018 at 1:37 PM, Ralphred said:

I use a similar argument to evade people calling me racist.

I point out that by using the term 'racist' they are tacitly acknowledging that there are subspecies of human, and somehow they think they are qualified to better quantify what constitutes a subspecies when science has yet to do so.

This isn't a permanent solution, but confuses them long enough for me to pick up a heavy object and use it to render them unconscious.

I find it refreshingly confusing how many third party accusations of 'racist' are retracted, after you bludgeon someone with a fire extinguisher, but, as always, YMMV...

There is only one subspecies of human: Homo sapiens sapiens, and previously there were two, Homo sapiens idaltu. Race is simply due to different environments and is not genetically different enough to be a subspecies. We're all the same. The definition of a subspecies is genetic and behavioural characteristics that are quite different to the wild-type of the species, however still able to reproduce with another subspecies. Race is simply not quite there yet, indeed people are different in my ways within their own region in the much the same manner is different races - and what mainly sets a race apart is that the changes are almost entirely due to the environment. There are no substantial genetic changes at all - very much less than 0.005%, which is the threshold for significance. 

[Deus Voltage]

 

40 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Your arguments so far seem, to me at least, to have been this:

You're not a criminal if you commit a crime, if you think the law is incorrect.

Either:

 

A) You misinterpreted/ misunderstood my arguments (which I've made as clear as I possibly can) 

B) You're purposely altering my argumentation to suit whatever line of thinking/ narrative you may have. 

 

I would have been less concerned if it was the former. However, judging by your previous counter arguments (which I will dissect shortly) it appears that the latter is more likely. Pity (if that's the case), I didn't think you'd go this low. 

 

40 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But I did respond to your arguments.

You have responded to some, yes. I will grant you that at the very least. But you failed to respond to this when I pressed you on it several times:

 

Quote

The biggest point of contention here (in my view) is how crimes predicted by the CrimeScan AI reflect police decision rather than malicious activity. 

I purposely stated 'biggest point of contention', where was the counter to that one?

 

40 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Nuance regarding what exactly?

And what factors are not accounted for with the data I have referenced? Even if there is data not accounted for, it is the best we got, and you can't just assume it is incorrect without providing any evidence for it.

Check my previous argument. (Also I'm not sure if you're purposely trying to play ignorant or otherwise, a clarification on that would be nice, I await).

 

40 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I did not mention it because it has never been bought up until now, and I have never made any arguments regarding the accuracy of the algorithm.

You will not be able to find me endorsing or calling COMPAS accurate anywhere in this thread. If you think my arguments have been that COMPAS is good then you have completely missed the point of everything I have said so far, and I strongly recommend you reread my posts.

 

You have repeatedly stated the following in the affirmative without relativizing as you claim in your above sentence:

 

Quote

LAwLz: But even if you disagree with all that (which are indisputable facts), you still have to account for the fact that the machine which predicted prison sentences did not factor in a persons' race. It consistently arrived at the conclusion that black people were at a higher risk of being or becoming criminals, without it even knowing if the person was black or not. It arrived at that conclusion by looking at things like a person's criminal history, education, social life, crime rate in the neighborhood the person lived in, and other such factors.

 

This leads me to believe that you're not being honest with me, you're using deceptive framing at your convenience to strike when you feel it is opportune. I've seen this trickery before, it's a house of cards. 

40 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It is not a belief. It is a fact.

What do you mean by fact? Are you arguing that people who have consensual sodomy are factually criminal? What's the science behind that argumentation? You do realize that the law was carried on from British colonial times right? Science huh?...very interesting....

 

40 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am apathetic towards your arguments because they contain about as much substance as the air balloon you facetiously said you might as well be debating.

I went out of my way to look up different studies on the topic. I even looked at different articles that are for it and against it, and I also linked them in the forum. And now you have the balls to claim I don't have substance? Oh man, the mental gymnastics you have to go through must be phenomenal.

[Deus Voltage]

14 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

And im not offended by verbal discourse. I merely pointed out the absurdity of your attempt to character assassinate the other poster by saying its "sobering" that they can use words correctly and understand context.

 

This is quite simply amazing. When I use terms such sobering it's automatically deemed as character assassination. Wow, just fascinating.

 

16 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

Youre insinuation was that they are anti homosexual(i dont say homophobic because being afraid is different than being against someone). As a homosexual, i find nothing offensive about their commentary or use of words.

 What on earth's name are you talking about? When did I discuss that topic? Am I seriously imagining things now? Jeez Louis, I'm getting too old for this.

 

You know what, the other poster was right, this thread is a trainwreck. 

[LAwLz]

Just now, Deus Voltage said:

Either:

 

A) You misinterpreted/ misunderstood my arguments (which I've made as clear as I possibly can)  

B) You're purposely altering my argumentation to suit whatever line of thinking/ narrative you may have. 

 

I would have been less concerned if it was the former. However, judging by your previous counter arguments (which I will dissect shortly) it appears that the latter is more likely. Pity (if that's the case), I didn't think you'd go this low. 

If that is not your argument then what is your argument exactly?

If you are not trying to argue that criminals aren't criminals if they break laws you think shouldn't exist then I have genuinely misunderstood your arguments.

 

What do you define as a criminal exactly?

 

 

2 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

You have responded to some, yes. I will grant you that at the very least. But you failed to respond to this when I pressed you on it several times:

You have "pressed me" on it exactly once. No more, and no less. And I thought I did respond to it when I said you were quoting a completely different AI which was unrelated to the conversation. The AI you're referring to is CrimeScan, not COMPAS. They are two different things. You can't just flip flop between different things whenever it suits you. Stick to debating one please.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

Check my previous argument. (Also I'm not sure if you're purposely trying to play ignorant or otherwise, a clarification on that would be nice, I await).

What argument exactly?

 

4 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

This leads me to believe that you're not being honest with me, you're using deceptive framing at your convenience to strike when you feel it is opportune. I've seen this trickery before, it's a house of cards. 

You know, if you spent less time whining about how everyone are using unfair argumentative tactics against you, and more time reading the dictionary then we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

 

Also, since it seems like you're trying to emulate people like Peter Jordanson (and failing miserably) here is a tips, Peter doesn't constantly go "you're using deceptive framing!" when confronted. Instead of just giving an inane statement like "you're using trickery like deceptive framing", point out the fallacies in our comments if you believe there are some. What you're doing right here is the equivalence of going "no you're wrong and bad! Ha! I won the debate!".

 

10 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

What do you mean by fact? Are you arguing that people who have consensual sodomy are factually criminal? What's the science behind that argumentation? You do relies that the law was carried on from British colonial times right? Science huh?...very interesting....

Yes, they are criminals if they are doing it in a region where it is illegal.

The science behind that argument? Look up the definition of the word "criminal" in the dictionary.

This is truly mind-boggling to me.

 

12 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

I went out of my way to look up different studies on the topic. I even looked at different articles that are for it and against it, and I also linked them in the forum. And now you have the balls to claim I don't have substance? Oh man, the mental gymnastics you have to go through must be phenomenal.

Here is the thing... You're:

1) Looking things up AFTER you already formed your opinion. You replied to me, I replied back and then you decided to look into things. You're not doing things in the proper order. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even know that COMPAS did not include ethnicity in its variables until I pointed it out to you.

 

2) The different articles you have linked and references are talking about completely different things which I have never even given an opinion about. You might as well be quoting a study saying green has a calming effect on people, and using that as an argument against me. You were the first one to bring up CrimeScan. You're the one who constantly says that having weed should not be a crime, therefore people who possess it shouldn't count as criminals.

You are having completely different debates than what is actually being discussed here. You're arguing against points that nobody has brought up.

[Deus Voltage]

59 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If that is not your argument then what is your argument exactly?

If you are not trying to argue that criminals aren't criminals if they break laws you think shouldn't exist then I have genuinely misunderstood your arguments.

Here are my arguments, I hope you'll use them as references as the debate goes further:

 

1) COMPAS is highly flawed as evidenced by the following:

 

You can check this link if you're genuinely curious about fact checking me:

 

 

To summarize:

 

The algorithm had a higher error rate for blacks than it had for whites (with regards to committing crimes again, just to avoid the confusion)

 

2) I am debating that a person who commits a non violent "crime" should not be considered a criminal. There is no international consensus on all the nuances that go into deciding criminal behavior. To remind you of my other point, a sorcerer in Saudi Arabia is a criminal, in the U.S. they're not.

 

59 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What do you define as a criminal exactly?

 

Again, as I've stated earlier, we can either generalize and use a broad brush to describe what a criminal is ( a person who breaks laws), or we can be nuanced and methodical by treating each person on a case by case basis.

 

My hope is that a sentence would be based on reason and science rather than blindly following archaic laws. But unfortunately, things don't work like that. However, (and this is perhaps the main point of contention) just because you see it as fact (just as I see senseless beheadings in Saudi Arabia as a terrible fact) doesn't mean we can't criticize and aspire to change bloody and foolish laws.

 

59 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You know, if you spent less time whining about how everyone are using unfair argumentative tactics against you, and more time reading the dictionary then we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

What on earth's name are you talking about? Does pointing out argumentative inconsistencies constitute as whining now? And seriously now, we're playing the old dictionary game? I mean common, I did not expect this debate to go this route...

 

59 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Also, since it seems like you're trying to emulate people like Peter Jordanson (and failing miserably) here is a tips, Peter doesn't constantly go "you're using deceptive framing!" when confronted. Instead of just giving an inane statement like "you're using trickery like deceptive framing", point out the fallacies in our comments if you believe there are some. What you're doing right here is the equivalence of going "no you're wrong and bad! Ha! I won the debate!".

I honestly never heard of the guy, why are you assuming something that I'm completely ignorant about? This just adds to what I argued earlier, you're misrepresenting me and making assumptions about things I not only have not said, but also do not know. This is truly a bizarre display.

 

Edit: Just realized that you were sarcastically referring to Jordan Peterson. Probably should have googled that one. I admit fault in my failure to recognize who you referred to. At any rate, the way I write is influenced by things that are outside your scope, so stop making assumptions. 

 

59 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Yes, they are criminals if they are doing it in a region where it is illegal.

The science behind that argument? Look up the definition of the word "criminal" in the dictionary.

This is truly mind-boggling to me.

Again, my argument is that the belief that people who commit non violent "crimes" are"criminals" is a very silly and archaic notion. My fucking grandma has Berber tattoos, she'd be fucking stoned to death in a country where tattoos are against the law. Not wearing a hijab in certain middle eastern countries is a bloody crime that's applied even to foreigners. I don't have time for sensitivities being elevated to the rule of law (like hate speech in some nations). 

 

59 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Here is the thing... You're:

1) Looking things up AFTER you already formed your opinion. You replied to me, I replied back and then you decided to look into things. You're not doing things in the proper order. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even know that COMPAS did not include ethnicity in its variables until I pointed it out to you.

Oh so it's wrong for me to look things up after the fact to correct myself and become more informed? Seriously? You're the one who's mind boggling me, you have this whole thing backwards. Throwing stones in a glass house wouldn't be my first course of action.

 

59 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

2) The different articles you have linked and references are talking about completely different things which I have never even given an opinion about. You might as well be quoting a study saying green has a calming effect on people, and using that as an argument against me. You were the first one to bring up CrimeScan. You're the one who constantly says that having weed should not be a crime, therefore people who possess it shouldn't count as criminals.

You are having completely different debates than what is actually being discussed here. You're arguing against points that nobody has brought up.

I have repeatedly said "for example" and the like several times, yet you completely ignore this and pretend that I'm going all over the place. Jesus man, narrow minded much? 

[Andreas Lilja]

People can discriminate based on education, income, height, weight, age, culture, language; but race is where the line is drawn?

 

It's the same thing regarding stereotypes, everything is fair game but race.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Raskolnikov said:

People can discriminate based on education, income, height, weight, age, culture, language; but race is where the line is drawn?

I'm trying to find a girlfriend who has 5 PhDs, make $1,500,000 a year, are 4'18", is 20 years old exactly, comes from an East Asian culture, and speaks Klingon.

 

If we included race, then it just becomes unreasonably hard to find that one whose right for me.

 

/s

 

 

[Deus Voltage]

47 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

You know, if you spent less time whining about how everyone are using unfair argumentative tactics against you, and more time reading the dictionary then we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

You completely sidestepped this argument when you said  "I have never made any arguments regarding the accuracy of the algorithm.", and I replied with your own post when you said:

Quote

LAwLz: But even if you disagree with all that (which are indisputable facts), you still have to account for the fact that the machine which predicted prison sentences did not factor in a persons' race. It consistently arrived at the conclusion that black people were at a higher risk of being or becoming criminals, without it even knowing if the person was black or not. It arrived at that conclusion by looking at things like a person's criminal history, education, social life, crime rate in the neighborhood the person lived in, and other such factors.

 

Again, you're not genuinely tackling my arguments. You ignore your inconsistencies when pointed out to you and accuse me of being all over the place. Man that's rich. 

[Amazonsucks]

1 hour ago, Deus Voltage said:

 

This is quite simply amazing. When I use terms such sobering it's automatically deemed as character assassination. Wow, just fascinating.

 

 What on earth's name are you talking about? When did I discuss that topic? Am I seriously imagining things now? Jeez Louis, I'm getting too old for this.

 

You know what, the other poster was right, this thread is a trainwreck. 

Typical response... So what were you insinuating that by saying that you find them saying that it was technically criminal to be "sobering"?

 

And i dont know how you can not know what im talking about. You were just talking about it and i directly responded. Now youre lost? Or is it that you being sobered by something i wasnt the least bit offended by as a homosexual myself?

 

And why do you keep conflating the literal definition of the word "criminal" with "wrong". Lots of people who do the right thing are labeled as criminals by shitty governments.

 

Its illegal to feed the homeless in parts of the USA right now. Are the people who feed them "criminals"? Yes, they are. Are they just, moral, and correct to defy the law and help the homeless? Yes.

 

Its the laws, no matter how shitty or backwards, that make someone a criminal. That doesnt make the person who is a criminal under unjust laws any less right or moral. 

 

And of course the inverse is true. Is it legal to buy slave made electronics? Yes. Is it moral to do so? Absolutely not.

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, Deus Voltage said:

1) COMPAS is highly flawed as evidenced by the following:

I never said the opposite.

 

9 hours ago, Deus Voltage said:

2) I am debating that a person who commits a non violent "crime" should not be considered a criminal. There is no international consensus on all the nuances that go into deciding criminal behavior. To remind you of my other point, a sorcerer in Saudi Arabia is a criminal, in the U.S. they're not.

Then I recommend you pick up a dictionary and read it, because you are wrong. A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. That is the definition. If you don't like that definition then tough luck.

 

9 hours ago, Deus Voltage said:

Again, as I've stated earlier, we can either generalize and use a broad brush to describe what a criminal is ( a person who breaks laws), or we can be nuanced and methodical by treating each person on a case by case basis.

You got things completely the wrong way.

The definition I am using, which is the correct and official one, is not broad at all. It is very specific.

You're the one pushing for a much broader and looser definition.

Me - A criminal is someone who has committed a crime.

You - A criminal is someone who has done some crime, but not all of them because I think some crimes are less serious and I don't like calling those people criminals.

 

10 hours ago, Deus Voltage said:

My hope is that a sentence would be based on reason and science rather than blindly following archaic laws. But unfortunately, things don't work like that. However, (and this is perhaps the main point of contention) just because you see it as fact (just as I see senseless beheadings in Saudi Arabia as a terrible fact) doesn't mean we can't criticize and aspire to change bloody and foolish laws.

When did I say we shouldn't criticize or change stupid laws?

Like @Amazonsucks said, you seem to conflate "criminal" with "wrong". They are two different words with two very distinct meanings. Not all criminals are bad people, but that does not make them non-criminals.

The word criminal simply means someone who has committed a crime. That's it. There is nothing else associated with it. The definition really is that black and white.

 

10 hours ago, Deus Voltage said:

What on earth's name are you talking about? Does pointing out argumentative inconsistencies constitute as whining now? And seriously now, we're playing the old dictionary game? I mean common, I did not expect this debate to go this route...

Well, when arguing semantics, which you seem to love, then the dictionary is kind of the be-all and end-all arbiter of what is correct and incorrect.

 

You're trying to argue that your definition of a word is more correct than the actual definition.

 

 

12 hours ago, Deus Voltage said:

You completely sidestepped this argument when you said  "I have never made any arguments regarding the accuracy of the algorithm.", and I replied with your own post when you said:

Nothing I said in that quote was incorrect.

1) COMPAS did not factor in a persons' race when it made its assessments.

2) It arrived at the conclusion that blacks were more likely to be or become criminals than whites, although the severity of the crimes they ended up committing were lower than the estimate.

 

 

12 hours ago, Deus Voltage said:

 Again, you're not genuinely tackling my arguments. You ignore your inconsistencies when pointed out to you and accuse me of being all over the place. Man that's rich. 

What inconsistencies?

I have tried to tackle your arguments but they are so incredibly unfounded that it's hard to even grasp what they are. It's especially difficult when you throw around your own definitions of words rather than use the official definitions everyone else use and refuse to read the dictionary and learn what the words you use actually mean.

[Monkey Dust]

17 hours ago, Raskolnikov said:

People can discriminate based on education, income, height, weight, age, culture, language; but race is where the line is drawn?

 

It's the same thing regarding stereotypes, everything is fair game but race.

It is all part of the shit-show that is online dating. It focuses intently on the easily quantifiable, and completely misses the 'connection' aspect that meeting someone on a night out, or though work, via friends etc... gives you. You can connect with people who wouldn't normally be your type, or you theirs, be they/you the wrong height, weight, age (within legal limitations obvs), education level, race, or if feeling particularly open minded... gender, and you wouldn't give each other a chance online.

[baconborn]

I can see this as a sort of double edged sword though because on one side, if you are attracted to someone who happens to be the same skin tone as you, some might say this is racist, but if you are attracted to someone of a different skin tone, some might accuse you of fetishising minorities. Seems the problem really is uneccesarily injecting racial issues into places where they frankly don't belong.

[Vode]

On 11/6/2018 at 4:06 PM, Syntaxvgm said:

sexual preferences are something that just are what they are and you can't help that. 

Isn't this what the gay movement had to help people understand?  

It's ok for gay people. But straight people MUST not choose. That's rascist.

 

Kthxbye

[LAwLz]

23 hours ago, Vode said:

It's ok for gay people. But straight people MUST not choose. That's rascist.

 

Kthxbye

The study actually says racism is an even bigger issue in the gay community.

So homosexual people are being criticized for being racist too.

[Amazonsucks]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The study actually says racism is an even bigger issue in the gay community.

So homosexual people are being criticized for being racist too.

Online dating services are pretty degenerate no matter if theyre for gay or straight people these days. 

 

There should be a search criterion: "real human being not soulless sociopath".

[Vode]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The study actually says racism is an even bigger issue in the gay community.

So homosexual people are being criticized for being racist too.

lol idiots 

 

b right back only gonna date non-white gay transgender vegan immigrants from now on.

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

A quote from the late Russell Peters' comedy career:

 

"A hundred years from now, there ain't gonna be no white people, there ain't gonna be no black people. Everyone is gonna be beige.

 

But I'm already beige, so I ain't worried about that.

 

So you can run from us now. But sooner or later..." 

 

Sauce: