Being a racist while having a soft skull

[Lithrael]

Just in case it’s worth saying, I absolutely expect ‘getting shoved or punched’ as a possible/likely outcome of argumentatively or insultingly getting up in anyone’s face. That’s what getting up in someone’s face is for, in my experience. I haven’t actually been clocked since I was 12 though, since I figured out if I’m going to be Like That, I.... might get clocked. And I like not getting hit more than I like indulging in being belligerent at people close up.

 

[Thermal]

As much a lie as the one you objected to....

Not using those precise words, but surely you're not being that pedantic?

Do you think I can quote multiple posters asserting that he was terrified and exhausted from running for his life, and in fear of the butterballs? Be honest now.

 

[plague311]

Not using those precise words, but surely you're not being that pedantic?

Do you think I can quote multiple posters asserting that he was terrified and exhausted from running for his life, and in fear of the butterballs? Be honest now.

Take. It. To. The. *******. Thread.

 

[Thermal]

You're claiming that in every "while black" thread, or threads where a black person is murdered, you have supported said black person "from first posting to last"? I could quash that in a matter of seconds.

Nice attempt to sneak that in there and move the goalposts. No, I find many #LWB threads to be Great White Saviors running amok with a contrived narrative that are ill thought through. Right now, we are talking about Dead Black Guy threads, the one which the lying poster most frequently claims I am 100% against the black victim.

 

[Darat]

Not using those precise words, but surely you're not being that pedantic?

Do you think I can quote multiple posters asserting that he was terrified and exhausted from running for his life, and in fear of the butterballs? Be honest now.

You said "...The others asserted he was a timid, fearful little rabbit..." that is not in any way an accurate summary.

 

[plague311]

Nice attempt to sneak that in there and move the goalposts. No, I find many #LWB threads to be Great White Saviors running amok with a contrived narrative that are ill thought through. Right now, we are talking about Dead Black Guy threads, the one which the lying poster most frequently claims I am 100% against the black victim.

Ok, just to verify. You're saying that in every thread where a black guy has been killed, you've sided with the black person from the very beginning to the very end?

 

[Thermal]

Take. It. To. The. *******. Thread.

If you want to go on this, I'm game. But on cel phone now, tough to read, search, multiquote on the small screen. Will be back on laptop tonight if you want to continue?

I'd also like a nod from a mod that this is not going to be intractable as a 11/12 while doing in-thread.

 

[Thermal]

You said "...The others asserted he was a timid, fearful little rabbit..." that is not in any way an accurate summary.

Ok, conceded. Slightly hyperbolic language on my part. The point stands that I am virtually the only poster who thought Arbery might not have been straight fearful, and might have maintained a brass set. Virtually everyone else asserted point blank that he was terrified etc

But seriously, 11/12. I'm not taking cards over this on the Pujols thread.

 

[Belz...]

That's not hyperbole or lying. That is factual. I double checked.

You still confident? Avatar bet on that one?

Either support your claim or stop complaining about the impression others have of you.

 

[Thermal]

Either support your claim or stop complaining about the impression others have of you.

Third time: I just got a page of AAHs from another thread, and I'm not getting carded continuing your 11/12 argument on this one. Start a What's Up With Thermal thread or revert to PM. I'm not repeating this anymore.

 

[Belz...]

Third time: I just got a page of AAHs from another thread, and I'm not getting carded continuing your 11/12 argument on this one. Start a What's Up With Thermal thread or revert to PM. I'm not repeating this anymore.

No I'm good. Everything that needed to be said has been said. If you want to prove your point, you make a thread.

 

[Venom]

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.

I think you are being seriously reductive in how you think about racists. Situations involving racism are going to evoke strong emotions. But racists are people too. They have other thoughts and desires other than being openly racist. Consider this. I guess the ACLU were quibbling with legal matters when it came to the worst of the worst racists. I think they had a point, even if the thought makes me cringe.

 

[smartcooky]

ETA: And, the above isn't meant to be specifically about SmartCooky. I think he probably wasn't intending to justify face-punching in his post. I just wanted to make a general statement that words never justify violence. At least, I can't think of a case offhand where they do, with the exception of the implied threat situations.

OK, let me test you on that.

I'm am standing in front of you in your place of work with dozens of people around you that are friends of yours, and people you work with on a daily basis. I start shouting loudly accusing you of raping your own daughter. I won't stop and I won't leave and I keep shouting. As you try to move away, I follow still shouting the same things.

How would you feel about that?

What would your reaction be?

How would you try to stop me without violence being used?

NOTE:
If you try to forcibly remove me, that is using violence?
If anyone else tries to forcibly remove me, that is using violence?
If you call security guards or police to forcibly remove me, that is using violence?

 

[Belz...]

"Never" and "always" indicate, like singularities, that one's theory is incomplete.

 

[theprestige]

No, we're asking you to demonstrate your claim. We can move on to things related to the claim once it's proven. Can you do this?

I'm satisfied that the support for political violence in this thread is reasonably clear, just like it was in the last thread.

Since openly endorsing criminal acts is an automatic ban here, is there any other evidence that would change your mind? I think this post by plague311 is clear enough, for example.

 

[Belz...]

I'm satisfied that the support for political violence in this thread is reasonably clear, just like it was in the last thread.

Since openly endorsing criminal acts is an automatic ban here, is there any other evidence that would change your mind? I think this post by plague311 is clear enough, for example.

We must be looking at the same posts through entirely different lenses, then. Plague doesn't seem to be supporting or condoning this violence. He's simply talking about it being a consequence.

 

[dirtywick]

I can’t think of a reasonable explanation for this being a political act

 

[theprestige]

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.

This is victim-blaming, pure and simple. And thus a tacit endorsement of the idea that racist speech justifies violent retaliation. Not only justifies it, but requires it. Requires it to the degree that it robs the violent responder of all agency, and absolves them of all responsibility.

The truth is that it wasn't the words that put the old man in the ground. It was the physical violence the other person chose to inflict on him.

 

[cullennz]

I've lamented many, many times about just this. But it should be conducive to discussion to be vocal against the grain, no? Be a pretty damned boring place if no one did. So I put my own balls on the block and make the argument. Yes, I know that some posters will not get this. Quite a few, really. But I'm willing to take a hit over an honest discussion. Problem is, like with the liar above, it's not honest debate anymore.

And yes, he 100% knows he is lying. He knows from that Florida guy who shot an unarmed black man years ago right up through George Floyd, I have always 100% consistently backed the dead black man. Its been pointed out repeatedly, and challenged him to show one dead black man I haven't backed. He won't put up, because he can't. Yet he repeats the lies on every thread.

We're deep into rule 11/12 territory, so if you want to continue this, perhaps a different thread or PM?

Bit of an odd thing to seem to take some kind of pride over.

So you don't like.....you know...Take each case on it's own merits?

Or is it like "Hi guys. Which one is the black person? Ahh, cool thanks. They can't have done anything wrong, so I go with them?

 

[Darat]

This is victim-blaming, pure and simple. And thus a tacit endorsement of the idea that racist speech justifies violent retaliation. Not only justifies it, but requires it. Requires it to the degree that it robs the violent responder of all agency, and absolves them of all responsibility.

The truth is that it wasn't the words that put the old man in the ground. It was the physical violence the other person chose to inflict on him.

Following your reasoning - do you have any evidence for your claim that the old guy didn’t say anything that upset the murderer? Or for the other option to your reasoning - any evidence that this murderer randomly punched people in the face?