Being a racist while having a soft skull

[Emily's Cat]

Only a single one of the quotes you provided could be interpreted as supporting your claim, and even that one could have been made in jest. I told you this already.

Are you aware that your interpretation is not the only "right" interpretation?

 

[smartcooky]

That said... I think you're wrong. I would imagine that Arbery was terrified. I think any normal human being would be terrified when being chased by people in automobiles for no apparent reason. That's a scary ******* thing to have happen. Being scared is an absolutely normal and reasonable response.

[This really belongs in the "Jogging" thread so I'll limit my answer]

... and even if there was an apparent reason... say Arbery knew he was casing the property for a later burglary, that doesn't mean he can't also be terrified. He's black, he's alone and he's on foot. He's got Cletus, Bubba and BillyBob, armed and in their pick-up trucks, chasing him all over the place, in a country that has a history (including very recent history) of summarily executing blacks for nothing more than the colour of their skin. I think he was almost certainly terrified, and had every reason to be so.

Fear is an emotion... so is anger. Pujols had every right to feel angry when he was called the n-word, particularly after he gave the old guy an opportunity to retract, and instead, the old guy chose to double down. Should Pujols have punched the old guy... no, but he chose to do so (and that's all on him). Now the old guy is dead and Pujols is likely going to spend a good few years behind bars.

The only good thing that might come from this is that, if this gets enough publicity, it might send out a couple of warnings.

1. If you're a young black guy, don't punch a ranty old racist who calls you a ******

2. If you are a ranty old racist, don't call a young black guy a ****** unless you think its worth your life to do so.

 

[Belz...]

Are you aware that your interpretation is not the only "right" interpretation?

It is irrelevant whether or not it's "right", whatever that means, and that is not part of my argument.

Perhaps it would be adviseable for you to read what I actually wrote rather than add to the argument.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Absolutely not, and I resent your accusation. It's a FACT that several posters have interpreted his behaviour in this way, and if he wants that interpretation to change he should change his behaviour.

Several people are bad at reading, bad at comprehending, and primed to find racism and bigotry in every sneeze. That more than one person does the same thing doesn't make it somehow accurate or appropriate.

FFS, several posters have interpreted *my* behavior as being transphobic and hateful. Do you think they're right? Or do you think perhaps their own ideological bias leads them to assume bigotry and hatred where none actually exists?

And I know you've been subjected to this exact kind of argument, where your post is responded to as "that's something a XXXXX would say". I know that you're well aware that it's a bad approach, does not constitute an argument, and is in fact, nothing but poisoning the well.

What the **** does that have to do with bullying?

It's intimidation tactics. It's not responding to the actual argument being made, it's insinuating that because an argument bears a similarity of form to something that "bad people" have said, that if you say that thing, regardless of its accuracy or relevance, then you're also a "bad person". It threatens people with a label of evil if they don't stop presenting their view.

 

[Belz...]

Several people are bad at reading, bad at comprehending, and primed to find racism and bigotry in every sneeze.

If you think this is what we're talking about, then you are actually bad at reading. Joe has been very clear about what this is about.

It's intimidation tactics.

I've already explained to you that it's not. If you keep pretending that it is, then you are lying, full stop.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm cross posting here, because this sums up my sentiments fairly well.

Killing people unlawfully should be condemned by everyone who loves order, safety and a functional society.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you think this is what we're talking about, then you are actually bad at reading. Joe has been very clear about what this is about.

Joe is incorrect.

I've already explained to you that it's not. If you keep pretending that it is, then you are lying, full stop.

Well, I've already explained to you that it is, so if you keep pretending that it's not, then you are lying, full stop!

You asserting that you're right on a matter of opinion doesn't make it. "Because I said so" is a transparently fallacious argument.

 

[Belz...]

Joe is incorrect.

In what way?

Well, I've already explained to you that it is, so if you keep pretending that it's not, then you are lying, full stop!

I believe I know the argument I'm making better than you. You don't get to tell me whether I'm talking about a natural consequence of his behaviour. Your personal experience is colouring your interpretation, and your doubling down after being corrected is dishonest.

 

[portlandatheist]

I find it astonishing how much support there is here for extrajudicial violence

 

[Belz...]

I find it astonishing how much support there is here for extrajudicial violence

Maybe you can try your hand at showing that support?

 

[Thermal]

First off, the whole discussion here is dumb. You're not a racist, and the "oh Thermal is always arguing about what the black person could have done differently" brigade is full of selective reading and poor comprehension.

That said... I think you're wrong. I would imagine that Arbery was terrified. I think any normal human being would be terrified when being chased by people in automobiles for no apparent reason. That's a scary ******* thing to have happen. Being scared is an absolutely normal and reasonable response.

That said, however, flight and fight are part of the same response system. That Arbery switched to fight when flight was clearly a losing response is also a perfectly normal thing to do.

It's entirely possible to be terrified and fight at the same time.

Agreed (tho this should be on Jogger) that a normal person surely would have been afraid, knowing what we know now in hindsight.

What I see, though, are a lot of people who think black guys are withering flowers who live in fear of the white man and are living under the constant remembrance of slavery. This is most often represented by non-Americans, or people who evidently don't spend much time around black guys and are speculating about what they think black people are like.

The brothers I know are more like Pujols, here. Not easily cowed and not about to take **** from anyone. I think if some posters here (not meaning you, EC) actually spent some time around American black guys, they'd find their simplistic assumptions about their timidity are powerfully mistaken.

 

[Roboramma]

I've already explained to you that it's not. If you keep pretending that it is, then you are lying, full stop.

Have you considered the possibility that Emily's Cat disagrees with your assessment? The fact that you explained it isn't enough to show that she should agree with you, or that if she fails to do so she is lying.

 

[dirtywick]

It's not an "act motivated by political ideology". It is, however, an "act of silencing other views", which is an action of politics.

I personally wouldn't frame it that way, I think it's an ineffective way to communicate the concept, but I get what theprestige is saying. I would be inclined to frame it as an act of ideology. It's "might makes right" in action, which has always been closely associated with both religion and politics, I just think it's more blatantly obvious in the crusades, the inquisition, the 100 years war, etc.

I have an equally hard time buying that racial slurs are a political view. When neither the act was motivated by a political view nor the response was motivated by a political view, I just don’t see how you could call it political in nature

 

[Meadmaker]

I have an equally hard time buying that racial slurs are a political view. When neither the act was motivated by a political view nor the response was motivated by a political view, I just don’t see how you could call it political in nature

Racial slurs are not a political view.

Racism is a political view. The use of racial slurs is motivated by racism.

ETA: Opposition to racism is also a political view.

 

[Mumbles]

*sigh*

Every damn 4chan nazi tiki torch rally bigot on the internet is the same. Say something disgustingly racist, and then say they were "joking", or "playing devil's advocate", or whatever. And do it over and over and over.

I don't care what they think of themselves. They can think they're the next Hitler, or perfectly innocent. This is a message board on the internet. The behavior from these guys is the same on Twitter, on Instagram, wherever. Don't want to be treated like them? Don't act exactly like them . After a certain number of repetitions from the same person, I'm done. They run out of chances with me, permanently. I have to deal with these violence-justifying white supremacists in real life, I will not do so here.

Here, as when tempted to heap abuse on some worker, it's free to shut the **** up. Won't cost time, won't cost money. The satirical cartoon Booncocks told me that the great majority of white people understand this. The old guy could likely have just done what the white guy in the link does.

 

[dirtywick]

Racial slurs are not a political view.

Racism is a political view. The use of racial slurs is motivated by racism.

ETA: Opposition to racism is also a political view.

So to be clear, using racial slurs against a restaurant employee regarding the restaurant’s service is a political statement and a violent reaction to those slurs is political violence?

 

[cullennz]

Racial slurs are not a political view.

Racism is a political view. The use of racial slurs is motivated by racism.

ETA: Opposition to racism is also a political view.

This has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

 

[bluesjnr]

Maybe you can try your hand at showing that support?

I am 100% certain that you are aware of the meaning of the word, "implied".

This, from the first one and half pages, before I got sickened by the usual suspects standing on the backs of dead people to signal their virtue. The only change is that the "non racists" usually rely on the dead person being black.

I'm satisfied these pass the test of "support". Admittedly, some more so than others.

Sounds like he was standing his ground. No crime detected, free this man. Agreed!

Now would not be the time I would chose to test the patience of someone working fast food. They've been having to deal with all the stress of working through an incurable pandemic all while dealing with callous management and belligerent, selfish customers all for piss-poor pay.

This example is obviously an overreaction by our Dunkin employee, and he likely did not intend to kill this piece of ****, but I still imagine there's a bit of catharsis in seeing a racist, bullying customer get put into the forever box for running his bigoted mouth with the wrong one.

Gonna file this one under "guilty pleasure". I know, intellectually, it's not a good thing to have happened, but that won't stop me from partially enjoying it. It's a shame our man will be looking at a serious felony charge.

ETA: Dunkin is a coffee and donut shop. Most menu items are less than $5. Imagine being so mad and racist that you manage to talk yourself into getting killed over a $.89 donut or cup of coffee. An appropriately ignoble end for a racist old man.

Exactly, didn't even chase the guy down with a gun and start the fight - the dead guy started it with him.

Clear case of Stand Your Ground, let Pujols go.

I mean really what's the discussion here? It would be great if everyone could just put their cards on the table and say what they mean.

Yeah it's not good that a 77 year old racists was killed. It's not as bad as a 77 year old not-racists being killed.

Nah, i'm mostly just messing around.

I find it very funny that a racist literally got killed over a dispute involving what was likely less than $10 of cafe food. Imagine making it through 77 years of life and getting snuffed out because you absolutely could not resist the urge to be racist to some uppity black cashier. Unreal lack of survival instincts, truly impressive.

You pegged me. I have a potent animus towards racist people. If that's a character flaw, guilty as charged.

I'm not necessarily justifying the actions of the person that ended this man's whole existence, but I am pleased to see bad things happening to racists. It would have been better had he slipped on a banana peel or got hit by lightning because then there would be no downside to the death, but we have to take these things as they are, not as we want them to be.
The world would objectively be a better place if overt racists were afraid to out themselves like this. One punch at a time to a better tomorrow

 

[Darat]

We only have the scumbag puncher's word for it that the old bloke used racist language, during their argument.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Who cares?[/qu

It is irrelevant, to trying to justify some younger dude punching a bloke about 50 years older in the face.

If the old bloke did use it is that supposed to be some sort of justification for the over the top, to the point of being scummy retaliation?

What on earth are you wittering on about?

My post that you quoted had nothing to do with any form of justification, it was simply following the prestige’s reasoning to see what evidence they had for that reasoning.

 

[Belz...]

Have you considered the possibility that Emily's Cat disagrees with your assessment?

How in the blue hell could she disagree with the purpose of my own words?

I am 100% certain that you are aware of the meaning of the word, "implied".

I'm sufficiently aware of it to know you can infer any implication you want about someone's posts. The fact of the matter is that the words are right there for you to read.