Being a racist while having a soft skull

[mgidm86]

"Being a racist while having a soft skull"

Just a reminder since I forgot what thread I clicked on after reading this page.

 

[smartcooky]

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

OK then.

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.

It just that I have been dragged into those debates before, and I have no interest in participating in another one.

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

Ummm no. You would be among last members on this forum who would get added to my ignore list.... too many useful and interesting debates for me to think of doing that.

 

[Belz...]

Ummm no. You would be among last members on this forum who would get added to my ignore list.... too many useful and interesting debates for me to think of doing that.

Then give me the benefit of the doubt, please. I also enjoy your contributions and would dislike having you think this of me.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Saw this coming a mile away. "Are you calling me a racist!? You better not be because I'VE GOT MY CLUTCHING PEARLS READY AND SO HELP ME GOOD I WILL CLUTCH THEM! I WILL CLUTCH THEM!"

Again my claim is, has been, and always will be "In every discussion of a racial nature you are argumentatively on the side of the racist. What that means is what I'm asking you."

 

[Belz...]

Saw this coming a mile away. "Are you calling me a racist!? You better not be because I'VE GOT MY CLUTCHING PEARLS READY AND SO HELP ME GOOD I WILL CLUTCH THEM! I WILL CLUTCH THEM!"

Again my claim is, has been, and always will be "In every discussion of a racial nature you are argumentatively on the side of the racist. What that means is what I'm asking you."

#NAMEONE!!!!

 

[Roboramma]

Saw this coming a mile away. "Are you calling me a racist!? You better not be because I'VE GOT MY CLUTCHING PEARLS READY AND SO HELP ME GOOD I WILL CLUTCH THEM! I WILL CLUTCH THEM!"

Again my claim is, has been, and always will be "In every discussion of a racial nature you are argumentatively on the side of the racist. What that means is what I'm asking you."

Here's a possibility: while he is opposed to racism, he also thinks that some people too easily jump to conclusions of racism, so he tends to make that argument.

I've seen Thermal make some pretty bad arguments in some of those threads, but his participation in them doesn't imply that he's racist.

 

[cullennz]

There is no dishonesty involved. People can disagree with you and not be total monsters.

ETA: You know what? **** it. Keep doing what you're doing, and everybody will keep "lying".

The problem I have with stuff like this is that once you lot have named Thermal as some sort of racist dude, it doesn't matter whether they are or not.

A bit like sex offending **** sticks, even when it is plain bollocks.

I haven't actually read enough of their posts to have an opinion.

It doesn't help every poster doing it can't/won't actually provide any evidence.

Personally think these type of things are a bit lynch mob takes out poster they don't like, for whatever reason.

So until there is some actual evidence on the table, I think I will side with Thermal on this whole stupid argument, and maybe the others might grow the **** up and stop the accusations, or if not, at least provide some sort of evidenve it is warranted.

By the way

Hae you stopped hitting your wife yet?

 

[Belz...]

The problem I have with stuff like this is that once you lot have named Thermal as some sort of racist dude, it doesn't matter whether they are or not.

No one has called him a racist. You have completely failed to understand the point.


Shall I psychoanalyse you as well, to try to explain why you consistently screw up your reading comprehension?

 

[cullennz]

No one has called him a racist. You have completely failed to understand the point.


Shall I psychoanalyse you as well, to try to explain why you consistently screw up your reading comprehension?

Go for your life.

It might be amusing.

And given you are convinced you seem to know everybodies minds by reading a few written words, maybe your god like powers may do some good.

 

[Venom]

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.

Well hold on a minute.

Our legal system provides a Devil's Advocate for the defendant 100 percent of the time. Is there something wrong with that? Defendants are entitled to a defense, or at least a chance to offer some perspective on the crime. As a skeptic forum we will always have pedantic side discussions and quibble over details. There may not be as much procedural rigidity in here as in the courtroom, but that's part of what makes this a more interesting place to discuss these matters at length.

You are giving Thermal and others the side eye almost by default now for saying the discussion should continue beyond saying "oh they did a racist act, case closed!"

 

[JoeMorgue]

Here's a possibility: while he is opposed to racism, he also thinks that some people too easily jump to conclusions of racism, so he tends to make that argument.

And that possibility still falls completely and totally under the "Always being on the racist's side argumentatively" thing I said.

The whole "Oh I have to watch people to make sure they don't overplay the race card" persona is not a way to put a shine on or otherwise justify this particular behavior.

Doubly so if you have to assume that role in literally every single discussion of a racial topic. Apparently, there has never been a discussion on this board of a racial nature that hasn't needed Thermal (and others) to reel in the "Making it too much about race."

"I see over-reaction to racism as a much bigger deal that warrants my time, attention, and argumentative effort than racism" is a vile mentality.

I've seen Thermal make some pretty bad arguments in some of those threads, but his participation in them doesn't imply that he's racist.

I've assigned no motivation, philosophy, intent, or deeper meaning to anyone.

Again my argument is, was, and always will be "Why are you ALWAYS on their side?" Call it being a racist, calling it racist apologetics, call it Devil Advocating, call it counter-narrative, call it "countering too much use of the race card" (as long as you don't think that actually makes it better), call it dancing the Charleston in a Tri-Corner hat I care not one toss. It is what it is.

It's seeing every discussion about race and feeling the uncontrollable urge to move the needle towards the racist side of the argument. What you label it is not my concern, it is what is happening.

It's seeing Racism as a lesser problem than some vaguely defined and not really there "over-reaction to racism" and that is inexcusable.

 

[cullennz]

And that possibility still falls completely and totally under the "Always being on the racist's side argumentatively" thing I said.

The whole "Oh I have to watch people to make sure they don't overplay the race card" persona is not a way to put a shine on or otherwise justify this particular behavior.

Doubly so if you have to assume that role in literally every single discussion of a racial topic. Apparently, there has never been a discussion on this board of a racial nature that hasn't needed Thermal (and others) to reel in the "Making it too much about race."

"I see over-reaction to racism as a much bigger deal that warrants my time, attention, and argumentative effort than racism" is a vile mentality.



I've assigned no motivation, philosophy, intent, or deeper meaning to anyone.

Again my argument is, was, and always will be "Why are you ALWAYS on their side?" Call it being a racist, calling it racist apologetics, call it Devil Advocating, call it counter-narrative, call it "countering too much use of the race card" (as long as you don't think that actually makes it better), call it dancing the Charleston in a Tri-Corner hat I care not one toss. It is what it is.

It's seeing every discussion about race and feeling the uncontrollable urge to move the needle towards the racist side of the argument. What you label it is not my concern, it is what is happening.

It's seeing Racism as a lesser problem than some vaguely defined and not really there "over-reaction to racism" and that is inexcusable.

Assuming your bio thingy is correct under your profile picture, and you are from Florida....

I think a bit of the problem when it comes to miscommunication on here is

A lot of posters don't live in countries where there is massive overt racism.

Personally find it hard to get my head around.

Which maybe why we go lets look deeper into it before deciding what the motives are in each case.

Having said that, I also think some US posters seem to be turning a bit auto they must be a racist.

Forgive me if that didn't make sense and was gibberish

 

[Dr. Keith]

"Being a racist while having a soft skull"

Just a reminder since I forgot what thread I clicked on after reading this page.

Thanks. Similar issues on my end. My scull must be getting thick.

 

[Roboramma]

It's seeing Racism as a lesser problem than some vaguely defined and not really there "over-reaction to racism" and that is inexcusable.

The distinction I would make is I'd add "on this forum" to your statement. He sees racism on this forum[/I] as less of a problem than overreactions to racism on this forum. That seems like a much more reasonable position.

Personally I don't get too involved in the racism threads. But when the murder of George Floyd happened I was extremely outraged. I remember getting extremely angry watching that video. I have gotten in arguments with friends in real life about racism and call them out on racist ideas, but I personally don't really see the point in talking about it here because my sense is that almost everyone is on the same page and the few people who do put out racist viewpoints get countered enough that I'd just be adding one voice to the choir.

So with respect to thermal, I can see him seeing the first part of the question similarly to me: the problem of racism on this forum isn't much of a problem.

The second part of the question he seems to see differently from me. I'm not personally too concerned about people here seeing things in a racist context too often. I often open those threads and think, "Yeah, okay, that seems racist", and then just close them. So I think I disagree with him on that side of things, but I don't think he should be attacked for seeing it that way.

Anyway, I'm probably being too meta here, not talking about the issue so much as someone else's view of the issue. So I think I'll just back out of this discussion for now.

 

[Lithrael]

Well it was clumsy but what I actually intended to get across was that a conversationally hyberbolic statement like ‘free him’ or even a sentiment that it’s too bad the Thing was done by a Person and therefore merits Conesquences (as opposed to the Thing happening Sponteneously without anyone to blame) doesn’t override the speaker’s clarified serious opinion about law and order etc.

As in, if I actually made the statement I invented and then got hounded over condoning arson, I’d say I could see where you got that impression from what I said, but I don’t actually condone arson. That’s just how I felt about it emotionally. You can criticize me for my emotional response if you like but it’s pointless to criticise me for condoning arson, because I don’t condone arson.

All of which is to say, go ahead and criticise SuburbanTurkey for feeling some schadenfreude about the old guy being dead, but it’s pointless to criticise him for condoning murder, because he doesn’t condone murder.

 

[Belz...]

Go for your life.

It might be amusing.

And given you are convinced you seem to know everybodies minds by reading a few written words, maybe your god like powers may do some good.

(Sigh) My point is that we DON'T know everybody's mind by reading a few written words,. Once again you have failed to read for comprehension. You don't even know what we're discussing, so how can you side with anyone?

As for the evidence, your problem is probably that you didn't participate in the other thread, or didn't bother to read there either. Thermal's request for evidence is a smokescreen. He knows exactly what we're refering to.

 

[Belz...]

The distinction I would make is I'd add "on this forum" to your statement. He sees racism on this forum as less of a problem than overreactions to racism on this forum. That seems like a much more reasonable position.

That's a nonsensical position. We're not discussing racism on this forum when this behaviour is observed, but racism in the real world.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

Good stuff. Then work on a world where hate speech isn't tolerated and in fact is punished and the cops aren't racist so that people feel they can have recourse to non-violent ways to resolve situations.

This whole incident is a prime example of how systemic racism works against minorities and how many people don't see it.

Subject minorities to increased levels of provocation on a daily basis and tell them that the dominant culture values the provocation more than the harm done to them and that they better not react to it. When the minorities do inevitably react (as any group would to constant provocation) the narrative is then that the minorities are more violent (and the stats show it) and don't live up to the same standards as the dominant culture. Which is then used as an excuse for further racism and persecution. Which leads to increased reactions.

Observers like yourself only see the minorities 'overreacting' and not living up to your expectations. And that argument is logical in a given single instance but completely misses the greater context. But saying 'I don't care about the greater context, just don't punch people' might be a wonderful sentiment it is a completely privileged opinion which isn't going to change the situation and in fact only perpetuates the problems.

Funnily enough what MIGHT change the situation is every racist being punched to death every time they open their stupid mouths to insult a black man. They'd probably soon learn to stop it. But I think we would both agree that's probably a sub-optimal strategy too.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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

Your logic seems well off here.

You are saying that because this person probably voted for X and the other Y then it amounts to a political act or speech? Am I right? Because that makes no sense.

If the racist guy had stolen the black guys car that wouldn't be a political act, would it? And yet you could equally say I bet A voted Trump and B voted Biden.

If instead of a racial epithet he had said something obscene about his mother would you still consider it political speech? I certainly wouldn't.

If you follow this logic of looking at how people voted then being black itself amounts to a political act.

The bar has to be set somewhere higher than that. Using racial slurs to a black man is a lot closer to fighting words than it is to political speech.

 

[Belz...]

Good stuff. Then work on a world where hate speech isn't tolerated and in fact is punished and the cops aren't racist so that people feel they can have recourse to non-violent ways to resolve situations.

This whole incident is a prime example of how systemic racism works against minorities and how many people don't see it.

Subject minorities to increased levels of provocation on a daily basis and tell them that the dominant culture values the provocation more than the harm done to them and that they better not react to it. When the minorities do inevitably react (as any group would to constant provocation) the narrative is then that the minorities are more violent (and the stats show it) and don't live up to the same standards as the dominant culture. Which is then used as an excuse for further racism and persecution. Which leads to increased reactions.

Observers like yourself only see the minorities 'overreacting' and not living up to your expectations. And that argument is logical in a given single instance but completely misses the greater context. But saying 'I don't care about the greater context, just don't punch people' might be a wonderful sentiment it is a completely privileged opinion which isn't going to change the situation and in fact only perpetuates the problems.

Funnily enough what MIGHT change the situation is every racist being punched to death every time they open their stupid mouths to insult a black man. They'd probably soon learn to stop it. But I think we would both agree that's probably a sub-optimal strategy too.

Can't disagree with any of that.