Being a racist while having a soft skull

[cullennz]

To be clear, I’m absolutely against punching elderly people for any reason.

However, ST has a good legal point, if it’s legal to chase down and kill a teenager for walking while black, and it is in Florida, then this should be legal as well.

And the icing on the cake

The pretend it wasn't warranted, while saying it was.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

Stop pretending you don't get it.

If the ACLU was playing Devil Advocate for Racists in EVERY SINGLE RACIAL DISCUSSION you'd have a point or comparison.

As it stands it's just more pro-racist apologetics.

 

[Thermal]

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.

It's *my* responsibility to cater arguments to the satisfaction of others, or be branded whatever they wrongly interpret the arguments as? What a ******* joke.

No, it's *your* responsibility to drop the half-assed mind reading and projection acts and just read the words.

Joe is incorrect.

In what way?

Need it spelled out again? He is lying. He is knowingly repeating factually untrue claims. However you want to phrase it. He then "clarifies" by saying no matter what the demonstrable position, his mind reading is the correct interpretation. He literally says he doesn't distinguish, but lumps any counter narrative discussion as racist. Members here should be above such bufoonery.

My position, almost every time, does not even ******* relate to the actions of either party. My position is to challenge the narrative arguer on their starting assumptions and bias and lack of skepticism, that I tend to find most blatant on racially themed stories.

My normal approach: Why do you take racism as the default assumption, to the point of handwaving away any other explanation?

I think this is a fair question on a self-proclaimed board of skeptics. If you assume racism as the default in the majority of instances, your starting assumption is that the majority of white guys are openly racist. It is virtually 100% self-identifying white people taking this position, that most whites are racist. "Of course all us white people are racist". Telling, that.

 

[Belz...]

I thought you were going to take it to another thread, Thermal?

It's *my* responsibility to cater arguments to the satisfaction of others, or be branded whatever they wrongly interpret the arguments as?

I never said that. I said that if you act a certain way you have to expect others to reach conclusions that fit the behaviour. If you don't want those conclusions to be reached, you should change the behaviour.

I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand.

 

[Darat]

…snip…
…snip…
I think this is a fair question on a self-proclaimed board of skeptics. If you assume racism as the default in the majority of instances, your starting assumption is that the majority of white guys are openly racist. It is virtually 100% self-identifying white people taking this position, that most whites are racist. "Of course all us white people are racist". Telling, that.

That doesn’t follow at all. In fact none of what you posted in that paragraph makes any coherent logical argument.

 

[Lithrael]

See this is why Darwin Awards doesn’t include people who get manslaughtered. Suddenly nobody can separate a little old fashioned schadenfreude from condoning whatever actions led up to the unfortunate person’s death.

 

[Meadmaker]

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?

I don't want to get too deep into semantic hair splitting. Is it "a political statement", or "a statement motivated by political opinion"? Is it "political violence" or a "violence motivated by politics"?

We could go around and around on such questions, and sometimes I feel like doing that. Today, I don't.

Let's put it this way. I'm pretty sure the dead guy voted for Trump, and I'm pretty sure the employee voted for Biden. There's definitely a political element to the interaction.

 

[Thermal]

I don't want to get too deep into semantic hair splitting. Is it "a political statement", or "a statement motivated by political opinion"? Is it "political violence" or a "violence motivated by politics"?

We could go around and around on such questions, and sometimes I feel like doing that. Today, I don't.

Let's put it this way. I'm pretty sure the dead guy voted for Trump, and I'm pretty sure the employee voted for Biden. There's definitely a political element to the interaction.

Interesting. I wouldn't assume either of them voted. Many, many eligible Americans don't even bother.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you understand why people might NOT call the cops?

Do you understand I don't give a damn whether they want to or not?

I don't want to live in a world where people punch other people when they get mad, and such behavior is tolerated. I don't care why they are mad.

 

[Meadmaker]

Interesting. I wouldn't assume either of them voted. Many, many eligible Americans don't even bother.

Well, that's true. If they voted, I'll bet that's how they voted.

 

[Stout]

Not actually sure what you are saying, but seems a mix of tacitly pretending the old dude should not have been punched, while also saying he should have because for some reason you know he was a white supremacist.

Qhich is odd.

Yea, white supremacist is a real stretch, considering we don't even know if this guy is was actually white.

 

[smartcooky]

I don't want to get too deep into semantic hair splitting. Is it "a political statement", or "a statement motivated by political opinion"? Is it "political violence" or a "violence motivated by politics"?

We could go around and around on such questions, and sometimes I feel like doing that. Today, I don't.

Let's put it this way. I'm pretty sure the dead guy voted for Trump, and I'm pretty sure the employee voted for Biden. There's definitely a political element to the interaction.

White Supremacy is not a political statement, its a social statement that declares people to have higher or lower status in society depending the colour of their skin.

Black Lives Matter is not a political statement, it is a social statement that declares the rights of all people everywhere to enjoy societally fair and equal treatment.

Racism is not automatically a feature of the right, it exists across the whole political spectrum from far-left to far-right, and similarly those who are opposed to racism, and who fight against it, are also spread across the whole political spectrum from far-left to far-right.

Racism is NOT a political issue, its a human rights issue!!

 

[Belz...]

White Supremacy is not a political statement, its a social statement that declares people to have higher or lower status in society depending the colour of their skin.

Black Lives Matter is not a political statement, it is a social statement that declares the rights of all people everywhere to enjoy societally fair and equal treatment.

Racism is not automatically a feature of the right, it exists across the whole political spectrum from far-left to far-right, and similarly those who are opposed to acism, and who fight against it, are spread across the whole political spectrum from far-left to far-right.

Racism is NOT a political issue, its a human rights issue!!

How do you define "political", then? I'm a bit fuzzy on the term, but it seems to relate to positions and agendas of a social nature. Isn't white supremacy seeking to change or steer society, and therefore is political?

 

[dirtywick]

I'd agree that organized white supremacy is a political movement. I'm not so sure that every white supremacist is a part of that movement, or that everyone who uses a racial slur is taking a political position.

But I'm not on board with two men having a verbal argument that escalates to violence because one used a racial slur is political because you can maybe guess who each voted for. That's out there.

 

[Belz...]

I'd agree that organized white supremacy is a political movement. I'm not so sure that every white supremacist is a part of that movement, or that everyone who uses a racial slur is taking a political position.

Not all racists, for sure, but I would say that when you're into actual white supremacy, you've stepped from passive to active by definition. I might be wrong but that's how I perceive the terms.

 

[smartcooky]

How do you define "political", then? I'm a bit fuzzy on the term, but it seems to relate to positions and agendas of a social nature. Isn't white supremacy seeking to change or steer society, and therefore is political?

I regard things that are policitical to be those related only to a government's ability to govern its people, and to determine the best courses of action to allow its own citizens to live their lives as they choose, within the laws of the country.

Should education be free?
What is the value of keeping defence and/or police forces?
Should money be spent on scientific research?
Do we want a welfare state to be socially responsible for looking after its weakest and poorest members?
Should the government provide state housing?
etc etc

These are political questions?

"Should all people be entitled to fair and equal treatment?" is not a political question.

Of course, anything can be argued to be either political or not political depending on the arguer's philosophy and worldview, but my opinion is that racism is not a political issue, it is a moral, human rights issue. That all people should be equal, and should be entitled to fair and equal treatment under the laws of the land regardless of their race, ethnicity, ski colour, gender, sexual orientation et al, is a core feature that is fundamenal to a fair and humane society.

NOTE: Be warned, I am not going to participate in one of these interminably argumentative "well, what about this one or what about that one?" nit picking debates of yours in which you pluck some random things out of your arse and want to endlessly argue over as to whether they meet or don't meet my definition. Sorry, but if your intent is to try that on, you'll be having that debate on your own.

 

[bluesjnr]

Your first quote is not at all what people have said. Nice try.

That's right, some have said "One punch at a time to a better tomorrow" and, "we have to take these things as they are, not as we want them to be", as well as, "appropriately ignoble end", but nobody said they'd shake his hand and that it's too bad he'll go to jail.

Yup, nobody said it's too ban he'll go to jail.

What some actually did say was, "free this man" and "let Pujols go", which is nothing at all like "too bad he'll go to jail".

 

[Venom]

How do you define "political", then? I'm a bit fuzzy on the term, but it seems to relate to positions and agendas of a social nature. Isn't white supremacy seeking to change or steer society, and therefore is political?

I don't think it's that difficult. It's safe to say that racist guy held prejudices against blacks. It's not safe to say he was actively trying to uphold a larger ethno-nationalist ideology.

The latter would make it a political matter. No, wearing racist tattoos or simply using words with historical baggage from Jim Crow era wouldn't make it a political issue either.

 

[Belz...]

I regard things that are policitical to be those related only to a government's ability to govern its people, and to determine the best courses of action to allow its own citizens to live their lives as they choose, within the laws of the country.

Ok that's fine. I think it's a bit narrow but it puts your statement in context.

NOTE: Be warned, I am not going to participate in one of these interminably argumentative "well, what about this one or what about that one?" nit picking debates of yours in which you pluck some random things out of your arse and want to endlessly argue over as to whether they meet or don't meet my definition. Sorry, but if your intent is to try that on, you'll be having that debate on your own.

Geez, I just asked a question. I gave you my perspective and asked for yours. I happen to think that understanding what we mean by words is crucial to having productive discussions. I don't think that's some sinister, dastardly agenda. Some people LOVE vague language because it allows them to avoid being pinned down, and I don't let them get away with it. So seeking to reach a consensus on what we mean by a word has become a habit.

If what you wrote is what you really think of me, just put me on ignore and be done with it.

 

[Belz...]

That's right, some have said "One punch at a time to a better tomorrow" and, "we have to take these things as they are, not as we want them to be", as well as, "appropriately ignoble end", but nobody said they'd shake his hand and that it's too bad he'll go to jail.

Right. So it was a lie.

So here's the question: why did you need to fabricate quotes to support your argument?