• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Being a racist while having a soft skull

Thermal said:
Why do I have the sinking feeling that those who defend punching someone else for talk they don't like feel that they are exempt from the same treatment?
Click to expand...

I'm sure they would be the first to agree that if they ever spouted "nazi" rhetoric, they should be subjected to physical violence. It's their preferred expressions of hate and bigotry that are exempt from the rule.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Black guy gunned down in the street = "Why didn't he just run faster?" for 20 pages.
Click to expand...

As an aside - I still don't understand this. Birth of a Nation is free on Youtube for them to masturbate to, why bother with their little white supremacy murder stories?
 
Mumbles said:
As an aside - I still don't understand this. Birth of a Nation is free on Youtube for them to masturbate to, why bother with their little white supremacy murder stories?
Click to expand...

As an aside, he's lying. I was advocating that Arbery was not cowering in fear of the fat racist rednecks, and appeared to be a strong and confident man. The others asserted he was a timid, fearful little rabbit (despite rushing the gunman like a boss when faced with the final showdown). You of all people should have been able to understand that.
 
The Don said:
Because you enjoy making strawman arguments ? :confused:
Click to expand...

And what's the strawman, exactly? Posters on this very page are asserting the first part quite plainly. But it's a cowardly and dishonest argument if they don't agree that they should be subject to the same. Some love to talk about dishing it out, but....
 
Again you can put any excuse from a roll eye emoji to a pithy one liner to a multi-paragraph hissy fit rant in front "And therefore it doesn't matter that in every conservation I magically and by pure coincidence find myself argumentatively on the side of the racist. using the bulk of my words to defend/apologize/tone down their action" you want.

It still is what it is.
 
Belz... said:
No one is defending the punching. You can stop that fanfic.
Click to expand...

At least three posters on this very page are showing support for violence used against words, with differing degrees of vascillation.

Eta: speaking of fan fic, you responded earlier that I was playing Devils Advocate when I said I was arguing counter narrative? Arguing counter narrative means my POV is counter to the narrative. It does not mean DAing. See how you rewrote that for a cheap jab?
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Words do not cause physical harm.
Click to expand...

Well, if it's one thing we know it's that this isn't true! Words caused that old man a ton of physical harm. Enough to put him in the ground.

The most tragic part about this whole thing is Grumpy McRacist was probably just having a bad day. He ended up taking it out on the wrong person and got 86'd.

cullennz said:
I haven't read the whole thread but from the articles I have seen we only have killer punchy scum's word that the old dude did anything racist.

Not that it is relevant to anything anyway, if he did.
Click to expand...

I was hoping we would get here. The "how do we even know that the old man said ANYTHING to make The Black Guy™ mad? The Black Guy™ probably just WANTED to kill the white guy because that's how The Black Guy™ acts."

Seriously, so he just hauled off and punched this guy in the face for no reason? I can't form words to explain just how stupid that theory is given all we know.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
There's been a lot of interest in Australia about "one punch" killings. With all the cartoon violence on TV and real violence in the street people seem to be unaware of how dangerous "one punch" can be. If the person hit falls and hits their head badly, then the odds are higher than you think it can be fatal.
Click to expand...

I think people often forget how dangerous to just fall from a standing height if you're legit knocked out so you aren't doing anything to protect yourself. It's not like tripping falling when you can put a hand out or roll into the fall a bit or even just vaguely and generically "be ready" for the impact.

But imaging putting everything that is us into a bowling ball and dropping that bowling ball onto a concrete floor from 5 or 6 feet in the air. Sounds kind risky and scary and dangerous doesn't it? But that's exactly what an uncontrolled fall from a standing height is.
 
Thermal said:
And what's the strawman, exactly? Posters on this very page are asserting the first part quite plainly. But it's a cowardly and dishonest argument if they don't agree that they should be subject to the same. Some love to talk about dishing it out, but....
Click to expand...

Who has said that they are tolerant of the use of physical violence in response to verbal violence but that it should not apply to them ?

That's the strawman.
 
The Don said:
Who has said that they are tolerant of the use of physical violence in response to verbal violence but that it should not apply to them ?

That's the strawman.
Click to expand...

One more time:

Posters on Lo this very page are defending violence against words. As I said, and clearly, I have a sinking feeling they think said violence against words should not be leveled against them. That is not saying that they have come out and said so. That would take honesty and courage, which I suspect their argument is lacking.

Up to speed now?
 
Thermal said:
At least three posters on this very page are showing support for violence used against words, with differing degrees of vascillation.
Click to expand...

Emily tried to support that very claim earlier and failed. Want to have a go at it?

Eta: speaking of fan fic, you responded earlier that I was playing Devils Advocate when I said I was arguing counter narrative? Arguing counter narrative means my POV is counter to the narrative. It does not mean DAing. See how you rewrote that for a cheap jab?
Click to expand...

No, I don't see that at all. You're playing devil's advocate. If you don't like the hat, maybe you should stop wearing it.
 
Thermal said:
One more time:

Posters on Lo this very page are defending violence against words. As I said, and clearly, I have a sinking feeling they think said violence against words should not be leveled against them. That is not saying that they have come out and said so. That would take honesty and courage, which I suspect their argument is lacking.

Up to speed now?
Click to expand...

Yeah! It's not that you're completely making **** up! It's just that you're so right none of "those people" will come out and admit it!

It's not a strawman, it's....it's....you know...it's just not a strawman. Duh.

Also, can you quote a few of the people who are "defending violence against words". I'd like a specific example. I can't find one, but I'm probably one of "those people" you mentioned before.
 
Thermal said:
One more time:

Posters on Lo this very page are defending violence against words. As I said, and clearly, I have a sinking feeling they think said violence against words should not be leveled against them. That is not saying that they have come out and said so. That would take honesty and courage, which I suspect their argument is lacking.

Up to speed now?
Click to expand...

On what to you base this "sinking feeling" ?

Without evidence to support it all you have is the strawman argument that people who tolerate the use of physical violence in response to verbal violence lack honesty and courage and thus their argument can be dismissed.

You have constructed the straw man and are arguing against it.


....edited to add......

I have some experience with left wing "agitators" who were willing to go toe to toe with right wing thugs back in my student protest days (to my shame I was not one of them, I'm too cowardly :o). It's only anecdotal but they were prepared to "take it" as well as "dishing it out".

I think think that they considered it an acceptable price for protecting their older and frailer comrades.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Emily tried to support that very claim earlier and failed. Want to have a go at it?



No, I don't see that at all. You're playing devil's advocate. If you don't like the hat, maybe you should stop wearing it.
Click to expand...

Counter narrative does not mean deliberately constructing an argument to be counter to the narrative for a rhetorical contrarian stance or whatever. It means your POV is counter to the prevailing narrative.
 
*Shrugs* Devil's Advocate, counter-narrative, apologist, secret admirer... I don't care. I've never put a label on it because I don't care and I don't want to argue about the label.

When the topic is racial in nature we can count on the same 4 or 5 people (and that's not even counting the one or two just cartoonishly over the top actual racists we have) to be argumentatively on the side of the racist narrative. Everytime. Everytime. Everytime.

Call it whatever you want, that's not the issue.
 
Thermal said:
Counter narrative does not mean deliberately constructing an argument to be counter to the narrative for a rhetorical contrarian stance or whatever. It means your POV is counter to the prevailing narrative.
Click to expand...

I know that this is the argument you're trying to make, Thermal. I understand it. My interpretation is that you are actually deliberately constructing an argument that you don't really believe in i.e. playing Devil's Advocate. If I'm wrong and you do believe it, then I refer you to Joe's post just above mine.

Are you going to support your claim now? Or did you hope I wouldn't notice the dodge?
 
It's the troll/Poe argument. "Oh it's different because I'm doing it for different motivations..."

I don't care. If you see as your duty to constantly be defending racists for reasons other than racism that doesn't make it better or even functionally different.

Split the hair and argue the words until you're blue in the fact. At the end of the day you're still always on their side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom