STORY LOOP FURRY PORN GAMES C SERVICES [?] [R] RND POPULAR | Archived flashes: 229672 |
/disc/ · /res/ — /show/ · /fap/ · /gg/ · /swf/ | P0001 · P2596 · P5191 |
This is resource XJD1V77, a Archived Thread.
Original location: http://boards.4chan.org/f/res/1846434 Recognized format: Yes, thread post count is 124. Discovered flash files: 1 File: The Racist Tree.swf-(8.71 MB, Other) [_] The Racist Tree Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)15:29 No.1846434 Marked for deletion (old). >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)15:35 No.1846437 I feel bad for the racist tree. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)17:32 No.1846534 I don't get it. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:28 No.1846588 >>1846534 The racist tree did not evolve socially, it just made the pact to appear not to be racist so that it wouldn't be ostracized. That's the joke-ish message at the end: that racists are still being racists, just that they are socially forced to leave their ideologies. But not inside. So social progress is not really something you force. It is something people grow to learn and understand in time. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:29 No.1846590 >>1846588 But it was his apples. He had every right to deny the child apples. Why should the others hate it for his views? >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:30 No.1846591 >>1846588 its like how i dont fap to loli in public >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:30 No.1846592 Hey Monsanto! where are you hiding these trees? >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:31 No.1846593 >>1846591 A cynic would disapprove. If only your hunger could be cured by rubbing your stomach. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:34 No.1846595 >>1846590 free speech and freedom of choice is a two way street. he has the right to deny a child apples, they have the right to deny him attention for his faulty and offensive reasoning >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:37 No.1846597 >>1846595 His reasoning was offensive to him, but how was it faulty? >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:38 No.1846598 >>1846588 you can't force a person to change their views, but you can force people to accept other views as the law of the land in order to allow for greater productivity and inclusiveness and to establish them as a cultural norm that later children will accept, like mandating speed limits or illegalizing segregation >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:38 No.1846599 >>1846595 It seems unreasonable that ALL the children would refuse the racist tree, after all, he wasn't being racist to THEM. Besides, wouldn't the tree rather drop its apples and grow more little racist trees? >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:41 No.1846601 In the racist tree's defense, Sam WAS a nigger. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:45 No.1846605 >>1846597 the children considered the reasoning faulty because it was a non-sequitur - what does being black have to do with giving apples? after being further pressed, the tree simply stayed steadfast in its decision, meaning the tree refuses to provide actual logic beyond "no apples for blacks.". thus, there's no other answer but to either not bring sam to the tree anymore or not acknowledge the tree, and because they dislike unreasonable intolerance more than they like apples and playing, they do the latter. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:50 No.1846615 >>1846605 >Implying sam being a nigger isn't perfectly logical reasoning AROUND BLACKS NEVER RELAX >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:53 No.1846619 >>1846599 contrary to popular belief, many people actually care about other people even though there is no immediate personal gain to be had; they're usually known as "friends", but friendly feelings can be expressed even without non-personal relationships. the children evidently considered sam a friend because they brought him to the tree that they loved so much and wanted him to have one of the apples that they enjoy. because the racist tree didn't want to provide an apple, the children felt that, even though there's no direct effect toward them, they care about their friend enough to be willing to support him by treating themselves as equals to him and not taking an apple. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:53 No.1846620 >>1846615 >AROUND BLACKS >NEVER RELAX Someone hood this flash NAO >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:56 No.1846625 >>1846619 But the racist tree had been nothing but kind to them before that. Shouldn't they consider the racist tree their friend as well? They're going to pick some stranger over their long and cherished friendship with the racist tree? >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:57 No.1846626 >>1846620 By my calculations, the ideal hood entry-point is either around where Sam is revealed as black, or when the Racist tree calls Sam a Nigger. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:57 No.1846627 >>1846625 obviously they're also racist, but not against people with black skin, against people with bark for skin >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:58 No.1846628 >>1846625 They grew up being taught that no matter how good a person is in all aspects, if they're racist, they aren't worth anything >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:59 No.1846630 >>1846627 But they're just fine with the tree until he refuses Sam the apple. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)18:59 No.1846631 >>1846628 That's awful though. One aspect overwhelming an entire equation? There is no balance, no consideration there. Someone may be racist, but they still have great capacity for good. No one is perfect. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:01 No.1846633 >>1846631 That's not what you're taught in school, TV, parents, newspapers, magazines and most of the internet >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:01 No.1846634 >>1846631 It's just as bad, if not WORSE than being racist itself. The Children aren't the true villains here, it's Society. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:02 No.1846635 >>1846633 Yeah, and all those places say 4chan is a place frequented only by criminal, racist paedophiles. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:04 No.1846636 >>1846635 Big surprise. Free thought is against society and almost against the law >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:06 No.1846638 >>1846636 >Thought Police >Don't you think you've had a bit too much to Think already? >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:06 No.1846639 >>1846625 that's true, the racist tree was kind to them, and they did treat the tree as a friend by asking it why it won't give an apple to sam instead of just turning their backs on him immediately. but the tree refused to speak about it at all, so there was now an intractable difference between the children and the tree. there could even be new reason to question the friendship as well - did the tree only like them because they were not black? - but that's irrelevant. the only relevant point is that the children were left with a decision: support a longstanding friendship with someone who is illogically and (to them) revoltingly offensive, or stand up for what they feel is right. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:07 No.1846642 >>1846638 Closed minds stop thought crimes, citizen. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:10 No.1846645 >>1846639 Why can't being black be a reason in itself for the tree though? Why must it "explain" further than that, really? >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:11 No.1846647 >>1846645 Because the kids were brainwashed >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:12 No.1846650 intelectual /f/aggots >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:16 No.1846654 >>1846650 >intelectual >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:17 No.1846656 >>1846654 Yes. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:18 No.1846660 It just means that if you wanna hate black people, do it subtlety with jokes and behind their backs with good company :) >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:18 No.1846663 >>1846645 see >>1846595 he doesn't have to defend anything, legally. he has the right to not give apples to anyone. but the children want to be friends with people (and trees) that aren't morally repugnant - which is their right as well. if the tree refuses to work with the children, there's no reason for the children to work with the tree. in the same way the tree shouldn't have to relinquish his beliefs, the children don't either. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:21 No.1846666 >>1846663 >morally repugnant >free apples >obligation to hand out apples to anyone that demands of it >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:22 No.1846668 Can we archive a thread on /f/? >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:23 No.1846670 >>1846668 They're automatically archived. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:27 No.1846673 >>1846631 "good" is intrinsically subjective. perhaps the children believe that equal treatment and/or logical reason are mandatory qualities to being "good;" we don't know. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:29 No.1846674 >>1846666 The tree has no obligation to give apples to everyone. However, having irrational hatred of one group of individuals will make some people think of you as morally repugnant. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:30 No.1846675 >>1846666 more like >free apples >obligation to be consistent or logical >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:30 No.1846676 >>1846673 meaning you're pretty much ascribing whatever values best suits your agenda in this story? >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:31 No.1846677 One thing I'd like to note. While I'm not speaking out against the idea that blacks aren't dumber or worse in any aspect by nature, even if the tree thought this way, it really wasn't an excuse to deny the apple. I doubt a young child would shank or otherwise harm the tree, and it seems silly to think that he'd deny dumber children apples. The tree is behaving in an irrational way in it's hatred of Sam. And while it certainly has the right to refuse apples to anyone it pleases to, the children have the same right to deny the tree their business. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:32 No.1846679 >>1846675 i'm pretty sure you don't own it to anyone to explain your beliefs, internal/external (in)consistency. also i'm pretty sure that being able to provide something of value has nothing to do with being consistent or logical? >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:33 No.1846681 >>1846677 >it really wasn't an excuse to deny the apple. Um, it was the tree's apples? The tree owned the apples, therefore it is his/her/it's right to deny them with or without valid reason. Remember, this is different from a job application, it is not a public service, no tax monies are being paid towards these apples. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:35 No.1846685 >>1846681 and it as the children's free time. It's their right to associate with the tree or not. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:36 No.1846686 >>1846676 what's my agenda? i don't know why the kids dislike racism. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:36 No.1846687 >>1846677 Disliking a black because he's black is practically equivalent to disliking an idiot because he's an idiot >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:37 No.1846688 >>1846681 See >>1846595 >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:37 No.1846689 >>1846685 Yes, because in this case the tree is immobile, it is dependent on those children to come to it. This is where the logic of the story falls apart when applied to real life. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:39 No.1846690 >>1846688 > faulty and offensive reasoning please refer to >>1846689 >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:39 No.1846691 >>1846689 No, it doesn't If the tree were mobile, it could go to the children all it wanted and they'd still deny to give it their free time, to eat his apples and play under his racist branches Or he'd take over the world. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:40 No.1846693 >>1846690 I don't see how the mobility of the tree has anything to do with the children not wanting to associate with him >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:41 No.1846694 >>1846691 Well then its clear from your explanation that this is just one of those fantasies then. *shrug* Not so much social progress as more of a progressive fairy tale. heh >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:42 No.1846695 >>1846681 No, no, no, you misunderstood. He has every right to deny the apple, but it wasn't a logical excuse. If he saw that Sam killed kittens, that would be a logical excuse to withhold them. >>1846687 But there are concrete reasons do dislike idiots, they're dumb. Even if blacks are dumber, more likely to commit crimes than the other children, those hardly apply to a child. Hell, the tree would be assuming he was one of the majority of blacks who are that way, though in this case, that might be a safe assumption. Also, why hate a dumb person, especially a dumb child? If their lack of intelligence is harming something, sure, withhold the apple. Sam, dumb or not, had done nothing wrong except being black. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:42 No.1846697 >>1846693 Oh nothing, just a tongue in cheek poke at "faulty and offensive reasoning". >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:45 No.1846701 >>1846695 No, no, no, you misunderstood. He has every right to deny the apple, but it wasn't a logical excuse. If he saw that Sam killed kittens, that would be a logical excuse to withhold them. refer to: >>1846679 >But there are concrete reasons do dislike idiots Within the rigid realms of the story, it's sort of meaningless. I mean sure, you expect me to suspend disbelief, but then try to address social issues at the same time is just stupid. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:45 No.1846702 >>1846679 the children's company is valuable to the tree in the story, so reapply your post to the kids. >>1846689 true, in real life, racists can go associate with other racists. that's self evident. but the tree wants to associate with non-racists. thus, it has to appear non-racist, which is the point of the story. >> [_] Anonymous 01/02/13(Wed)19:50 No.1846706 >>1846702 which in turn i ascribe that in real life(which i'm sure this is what the story is trying to do), the racist 'anything' could just find other friends. >. but the tree wants to associate with non-racists. thus, it has to appear non-racist, which is |
|