StorminNorman
You can want to be as specific all you want. Doesn't mean the person you initially replied to is wrong, especially given there's a couple of American dictionaries who list that definition. And I'd temper your rhetoric about there being such a divide a bit too, especially when Ohio and Indiana voted for Trump the year he won. Sure seems like there were a bunch of northerners who were thinking along the same lines as those in the south...
Also, no need to apologise for being a prick, you shouldn't give two fucks about what people think of you here. I mean, why should you censor yourself for some randoms who don't know you from a bar of soap? We all have opinions, we should be able to express them how we want. We should also expect criticisms of those opinions though.
To be fair, they didn't actually say that what the others called it was smart or correct, just that they did call it that. But given nuance can be deduced from people's words, I think we can both assume that the person you're engaging with isn't playing with a full deck of cards...
Your first sentence is somewhat correct, I'd argue that dealing with any kind of absolute like you have done is incredibly dumb though. Of course being outspoken can get you bullied. It may be less likely in a university/college setting, but it's definitely gonna happen. And your second second sentence is so wrong it's almost comical. Bullying at a tertiary education level is so common that I guarantee there's a bunch of studies done on it and probably a wiki page for it too.
Edit: lol, yep, shit loads of studies (and there's plenty more to be found than just these few), and the wiki exists.
Honestly, it's worse, if you're thinking of the Chappelle's Show skit. At least the character Clayton Bigsby is also blind so he literally doesn't know he's actually white.
How can that be a classic behaviour? For one, they haven't done it, as illustrated by how hard they've cracked down on any facist behaviour since the cessation of WII. And wouldn't they have had to have done it more than once for it to be a classic behaviour? They've literally been nazists once. They'd have to have been nazists more than once, and gone through the phases you've described for any normal person to call it a "classic".
You know what is an example of a classic behaviour though? Internet "experts" who just trust what they're given and don't do any research about it. Like you've done. Want proof? Read the other reply to the comment you've replied to here. And if that's not enough, explain to me why the German foreign minister hasn't been jailed/charged/etc for these remarks. Never trust just one source.
Nah, it's easy to imagine that. Multiplayer. The Nazi team wins. Swastikas everywhere. Pretty sure it's why cod no longer has swastikas in multiplayer anymore (and if I'm remembering rightly, they kept it in the single player as they felt it wasn't offensive as it is given with a hell of a lot of context that multiplayer rounds simply don't have).
Actually, she did have HIV in the movie, the screenwriter confirmed it a few years ago. She did have hep-c in the book though.
Which is totally fine. Your usage of them as you did would be called a scare quote.
You sure as shit don't. They used the quotation marks just fine. So fine in fact, that this usage you are so against is a well established grammatical device, look up "scare quotes".
If you're American, they're not yanks as they aren't Yankees. But to the rest of us, everyone who is a citizen of the US is a yank, regardless of if they're a Yankee or not. Fair point on the rest though.
"Because drugs" is probably the closest were gonna get to context.