Let us talk about 'Civility'

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . . . 20 NEXT
 

Lil devils x:

Marik2:
lol, this just came out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7hdIIneypE

She is wearing my dress! I have that exact same dress! I was having difficulty following what she was saying while looking at her in my dress. so had to listen to it rather than watch. LOL

So, it comes in tiny size?

runic knight:

Agema:

runic knight:
Calls himself a white nationalist and defines it as, literally, a white person who is a nationalist.

Screw him, then.

"White nationalist" is a clearly understood term to pretty much anyone. If race really doesn't matter, you're just a nationalist. If you're white and a nationalist, then say you're white, and a nationalist. If you're a "white nationalist", you're saying something very distinct and should be judged accordingly. If it turns out you used it mistakenly, apologise and use the correct terminology next time round.

If someone wants to step into the political arena and attempt to alter the public understanding of a term, it behoves us to very carefully think why. The obvious and only likely reason in such a case is obfuscation. Once sufficient confusion about what "white nationalist" means is created, it means every white nationalist (i.e. racist) suddenly gains plausible cover to help advance their racist agenda.

Never mind that we've been sitting through years and years of these arseholes deliberately planning and rolling out these wheezes designed specifically to help them spread their odious shit in the mainstream by deflecting criticism. It's all about superficial reasonability and appeals to positive aspects of liberal society, like the scam artists who play on people's charitable nature to swindle money they neither need or deserve. We just make utter, fucking idiots of ourselves to not look beneath that veneer and miss the odious turd it's plainly attempting to conceal.

I agree.

Much like "racist", "misogyny", "unamerican", "unpatriotic", "feminism", "islamophobic", "globalist" and countless other word attempted to be re-defined my those who politicize them and utilize them, the intention to do so is often very intentional, and if so, usually done to change how the narrative works, how people interpret it, and to change how it relates to their opponents.

A bad word carries a horrible stigma, so it is changed to apply to an opponent solely so the stigma harms them.
A good word carries a positive social memory, so it is controlled to apply to yourself exclusively, or in support of your position more than an opponent.
A bad word carries a horrible stigma but is embraced by an ally, so it is changed to be less harmful or to muddy the water.
A good word carries a positive cultural view and is embraced by an opponent, so it is changed to be seen as more harmful than it was before.

In this case, it seems an attempt to redefine an overly-used slanderous label in a way that requires careful addressing, or else those responding to it fall into the trap of looking like they hate white people and nationalism individually, as the way it was defined in how it was used made clear that, not the standard definition, was the intention behind its use. People jumping on that, calling the guy a true racist and support of a white nation fall into that trap and are easily pointed to as examples of the unreasonably of the opponent's position for opposing reasonable things (being white, being nationalistic) because they knee-jerked to the use of the term itself.

That said, I don't know the intent is there fully, or if it is just my presumption about his intent to do so. But that doesn't matter even if it is. He played his cards well, he defined it himself and came off with enough plausibility deniability, so to speak, to retain a reasonable position (being white and being a nationalist is ok), at expense of seeming either out or touch for not "knowing" what the term means, or not caring enough what the term means when used by others. Either would be a valid interpretation of the little speech by his target audience, but neither is being addressed right when someone instead just calls them a "true" white supremacist and supporter of racism themselves with only that example to go "look, see! he said it himself!". That instead just allows him to go "I didn't mean that, I said as much" and both deflects criticism that may be valid amid that smokescreen of knee-jerk reactions, and as a way to play his opponent for fools by associating with those knee-jerking or for looking like they hate white people and american nationalism.

Here, a good example of the same idea.

ObsidianJones:
Hey, guys. I'm a Black Militant.

But hey, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying I'm a black guy who believes in the Military. Did you know that the word Militant came from Latin? It just means to serve as a Soldier. So Yeah, I'm serving as a soldier... in spreading the good word about the Military, baby!

Ok, you are a black guy who believes in the military and uses a controversial term to describe it as such.

You clarified it wasn't the standard definition there, so we have all the context we need to know what you actually intended to be meant there. So, because you did that, you just look like someone who either doesn't fully understand or just doesn't care about how other people define it. Neither of those look like you are a violently radical support of blacks though, so anyone accusing you of that would be right to be called out for doing so.

This is the heart of the problem with relying on labels to define people instead of pointing at their own actions and behavior, as the reliance on labels leaves it up to other people to steal those labels and try to re-define them.

The heart of the issue is that the majority gets to interpret what they want to interpret, and those of us on the fringes must go with their will. Not our own.

Another way of putting it, Myers as an Anglo (as he calls himself) can make another interpretation of what the term means. I, as a youth, wear an "X" cap that my Aunt got me after the Denzel Washington movie about Malcolm X. I get the mall security called on me for just eating at the food court. We weren't yelling, we weren't doing anything. And I was with my Italian friend.

They wanted to make sure I wasn't a militant and I wasn't going to start any trouble. No one complained about us being loud. The security didn't bring that up at all. They just said that some people saw my cap and were worried that I was going to start some trouble.

Meanwhile, I'm 14 and on Honor Roll.

I do not get to define anything about myself. If I wear certain things, I'm a thug and there's no two ways about it. If I speak a certain way, I'm an excitable minority. If I have political leanings, it's not because I think they are the best way to carry and continue on as a human race. Nope. I'm black, so of course I'd vote that way.

It's galling to have to live like that, never having anything that you can do without having the rest of the world pigeon hole you as something... and then having someone take a term that racists use to call themselves and have the cheek to be indignant over it.

Marik2:

Lil devils x:

Marik2:
lol, this just came out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7hdIIneypE

She is wearing my dress! I have that exact same dress! I was having difficulty following what she was saying while looking at her in my dress. so had to listen to it rather than watch. LOL

So, it comes in tiny size?

Literally, I thought it was preposterous that there would be a dress tiny enough to fit a cat.

Then I had to also remember that Devil is not, in fact, a cat who can type.

It's odd when you converse with people for so long and the only mental picture of them you have are weird avatars. I can't read about this Fallout 76 thing without thinking about Evilthecat on occasion...

runic knight:

As for the use of the term, I am not sure if he is just that obtuse, if his motivation for that was just to mock and upset those people so willing to demonize people of his political persuasion as "white nationalist" as another word for "racist" or "nazi" so freely in politics today, or if his motivation was to actually downplay the label itself.

Most likely it is just traditional politician double speak. White nationalist is an obvious dog whistle to the alt-right and the explanation that follows is mostly fluff meant to soften the term and misdirect centrists and swing voters. That is, the voters that don't like actual white nationalism but aren't terribly concerned about racism or discrimination, he's just feeding them some bullshit about how he's not about race at all, so that he doesn't alienate the voters he needs to get elected, while still sending a clear message to his core voters.

I mean, it is right there: If you don't care about race, why bring your race up in your descriptor to begin with?

runic knight:

In this case, it seems an attempt to redefine an overly-used slanderous label in a way that requires careful addressing, or else those responding to it fall into the trap of looking like they hate white people and nationalism individually, as the way it was defined in how it was used made clear that, not the standard definition, was the intention behind its use. People jumping on that, calling the guy a true racist and support of a white nation fall into that trap and are easily pointed to as examples of the unreasonably of the opponent's position for opposing reasonable things (being white, being nationalistic) because they knee-jerked to the use of the term itself.

Screw that, bluntly.

There are contexts to do things like that - with careful consideration, tact, and to improve enlightenment. In most other contexts, it's just messing with people. It's like some guy who reads out sections of Mein Kampf at a rally, and invites us to laugh at the rubes who end up cheering Hitler's words - except that he's deliberately picked the generally innocuous political platitudes from Mein Kampf rather than the Jew-bashing. Or the guy who deliberately baits the general public knowing perfectly well that some of the general public will always fall for the bait - which is a bit like giving a random load of students the BA Sociology finals exam and mocking the physics and foreign languages students for getting a terrible grade.

That this guy can claim to be technically correct in a very narrow sense doesn't stop him being a twat with a cheap and trivial gotcha. And petty points-scoring is only the best scenario: as per Asita's comment, there's evidence to suggest more malevolence than that.

So:

a) let's give him the contempt he deserves.

b) if you want to pick a fight on this concept, you might want to pick a less disreputable cause to associate with than sticking up for white nationalists pursuing white nationalist agendas.

This is not up for debate. He literally called himself a White Nationalist. And that means only one thing. He is a racist.

runic knight:
[

ObsidianJones:
Hey, guys. I'm a Black Militant.

But hey, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying I'm a black guy who believes in the Military. Did you know that the word Militant came from Latin? It just means to serve as a Soldier. So Yeah, I'm serving as a soldier... in spreading the good word about the Military, baby!

Ok, you are a black guy who believes in the military and uses a controversial term to describe it as such.

You clarified it wasn't the standard definition there, so we have all the context we need to know what you actually intended to be meant there. So, because you did that, you just look like someone who either doesn't fully understand or just doesn't care about how other people define it. Neither of those look like you are a violently radical support of blacks though, so anyone accusing you of that would be right to be called out for doing so.

This is the heart of the problem with relying on labels to define people instead of pointing at their own actions and behavior, as the reliance on labels leaves it up to other people to steal those labels and try to re-define them.

All republicans are white nationalists. It is a core part of their ideologoy. So it doesn't matter what he thinks the term "white nationalist" means, it is still applicable to him since it accurately describes his values and beliefs.

Saelune:
If you believed victim blaming is wrong, you wouldn't do it.

I am pointing out you are blaming the victims of your horrible behavior. My belief on it being wrong is irrelevant to the fact that is what you are doing.

Replying "no you" is also not a compelling rebuttal. You are blaming the victims of your own actions for behavior they have not done to excuse your own horrible behaviors toward them as a general group that you willfully and maliciously demonize.

runic knight:

Saelune:
If you believed victim blaming is wrong, you wouldn't do it.

I am pointing out you are blaming the victims of your horrible behavior. My belief on it being wrong is irrelevant to the fact that is what you are doing.

Replying "no you" is also not a compelling rebuttal. You are blaming the victims of your own actions for behavior they have not done to excuse your own horrible behaviors toward them as a general group that you willfully and maliciously demonize.

runic knight:

Replying "no you" is also not a compelling rebuttal.

ObsidianJones:

The heart of the issue is that the majority gets to interpret what they want to interpret, and those of us on the fringes must go with their will. Not our own.

Another way of putting it, Myers as an Anglo (as he calls himself) can make another interpretation of what the term means. I, as a youth, wear an "X" cap that my Aunt got me after the Denzel Washington movie about Malcolm X. I get the mall security called on me for just eating at the food court. We weren't yelling, we weren't doing anything. And I was with my Italian friend.

They wanted to make sure I wasn't a militant and I wasn't going to start any trouble. No one complained about us being loud. The security didn't bring that up at all. They just said that some people saw my cap and were worried that I was going to start some trouble.

Meanwhile, I'm 14 and on Honor Roll.

I do not get to define anything about myself. If I wear certain things, I'm a thug and there's no two ways about it. If I speak a certain way, I'm an excitable minority. If I have political leanings, it's not because I think they are the best way to carry and continue on as a human race. Nope. I'm black, so of course I'd vote that way.

It's galling to have to live like that, never having anything that you can do without having the rest of the world pigeon hole you as something... and then having someone take a term that racists use to call themselves and have the cheek to be indignant over it.

So, just so I am clear.
You agree that it is often mistaken that people judge others over short-hand terms and iconography, as your example clearly show that such judgements are possibly flawed, but you accept that this is fine and that such judgements should supersede even explanations of what someone actually means to intend?

I have to disagree. Explanation and context included with should be first, especially if it contradicts generalizational judgements, and doubly so if it is done expressly and intentionally to run counter such judgements.

Gethsemani:

runic knight:

As for the use of the term, I am not sure if he is just that obtuse, if his motivation for that was just to mock and upset those people so willing to demonize people of his political persuasion as "white nationalist" as another word for "racist" or "nazi" so freely in politics today, or if his motivation was to actually downplay the label itself.

Most likely it is just traditional politician double speak. White nationalist is an obvious dog whistle to the alt-right and the explanation that follows is mostly fluff meant to soften the term and misdirect centrists and swing voters. That is, the voters that don't like actual white nationalism but aren't terribly concerned about racism or discrimination, he's just feeding them some bullshit about how he's not about race at all, so that he doesn't alienate the voters he needs to get elected, while still sending a clear message to his core voters.

I mean, it is right there: If you don't care about race, why bring your race up in your descriptor to begin with?

I agree, that is likely his true intention. The problem is that such assumptions on our part really do not matter. Considering how freely the label is used to demonize and slander in modern political discourse, the fact he defined it the way he did makes it come off more as a rebuttal to those who so willingly label any who disagree with them as such a term. A use of which is growing steadily more frustrating and alienating to a good portion of the demographic as things like voting for a politician who promised to help the issues that relate to them is even seen as excuse to demonize someone as "white supremacist" or "nazi" now.

His intention to downplay the term only gains any ground when the term itself is so freely used that such a weaseling can be given any benefit of the doubt, after all. If it was only actual people who believe in white supremacy being labeled as such, it wouldn't fly at all. But since the bar for being called that is so low now, the looseness of the definition is being played with in reply.

Agema:

runic knight:

In this case, it seems an attempt to redefine an overly-used slanderous label in a way that requires careful addressing, or else those responding to it fall into the trap of looking like they hate white people and nationalism individually, as the way it was defined in how it was used made clear that, not the standard definition, was the intention behind its use. People jumping on that, calling the guy a true racist and support of a white nation fall into that trap and are easily pointed to as examples of the unreasonably of the opponent's position for opposing reasonable things (being white, being nationalistic) because they knee-jerked to the use of the term itself.

Screw that, bluntly.

There are contexts to do things like that - with careful consideration, tact, and to improve enlightenment. In most other contexts, it's just messing with people. It's like some guy who reads out sections of Mein Kampf at a rally, and invites us to laugh at the rubes who end up cheering Hitler's words - except that he's deliberately picked the generally innocuous political platitudes from Mein Kampf rather than the Jew-bashing. Or the guy who deliberately baits the general public knowing perfectly well that some of the general public will always fall for the bait - which is a bit like giving a random load of students the BA Sociology finals exam and mocking the physics and foreign languages students for getting a terrible grade.

That this guy can claim to be technically correct in a very narrow sense doesn't stop him being a twat with a cheap and trivial gotcha. And petty points-scoring is only the best scenario: as per Asita's comment, there's evidence to suggest more malevolence than that.

So:

a) let's give him the contempt he deserves.

b) if you want to pick a fight on this concept, you might want to pick a less disreputable cause to associate with than sticking up for white nationalists pursuing white nationalist agendas.

The guy is using a cheap trivial gotcha by playing with the definition of a word already loosened by over-use as a cheap trivial gotcha by labeling people who disagree with it. I agree. Even if you wish to conclude that this is all entirely done solely to downplay the word to cover his own beliefs, that doesn't make the poor decisions to react to it like a trained dog any less a foolish decision by playing into his hands and being the example to be pointed at as to why he "needed" to define it in the first place and how his opponents are intellectually dishonest in discarding his definition to instead latch onto the term alone and intentionally ignore the context he used it within.

Such as this here.

Saelune:
This is not up for debate. He literally called himself a White Nationalist. And that means only one thing. He is a racist.

where their intentional disregard for the context given to the statement is done solely so they can latch onto the term being used. This sort of response will be shown as an example of intellectual dishonesty of those who oppose him, and the blatant willingness to misrepresent his actual words and intention to do the equivalent of quote-mining him.

It plays into his hands and aids his and other people's efforts to downplay the term and muddy the water when people react like that.

It is like someone saying "I was killer last night. I kicked ass in that game." and some fool starts screaming about why the police aren't arresting them. That reaction is mocked for that response, and the positions held by those so eager to discard context are harmed in public eye by their association.

Then you have stuff like this.

BreakfastMan:

All republicans are white nationalists. It is a core part of their ideologoy. So it doesn't matter what he thinks the term "white nationalist" means, it is still applicable to him since it accurately describes his values and beliefs.

Where they are just openly making false claims because they wish to discard any sort of intellectual honesty for the sake of generalizing and demonizing an opposing political party.

If you wish to use his definition, the fact there are black, hispanic, and asian republicans makes that a false claim. If you wish to use the traditional definition of it being a believer of a white nation, then you are even more wrong both for the previously mentioned racial demographics among the party, and for the ones who are white but still don't hold the belief that the nation itself is white.

This is just a worthless generalization at best, and an openly malicious demonization at worst here.

This is also, to jump back on topic, the sort of behavior you start to see when some people excuse being uncivil just because they dislike a group of people. Usually followed by excusing removing of rights for the group or justifying violence against them for being part of that group alone.

Saelune:

runic knight:

Saelune:
If you believed victim blaming is wrong, you wouldn't do it.

I am pointing out you are blaming the victims of your horrible behavior. My belief on it being wrong is irrelevant to the fact that is what you are doing.

Replying "no you" is also not a compelling rebuttal. You are blaming the victims of your own actions for behavior they have not done to excuse your own horrible behaviors toward them as a general group that you willfully and maliciously demonize.

runic knight:

Replying "no you" is also not a compelling rebuttal.

I am pointing out your failures of arguments. There is a long list of them already waiting for you to address. This was pointing out the latest, that of trying to point at the actions of someone else rather than address the flaws in your own is itself a failure of an argument.

But you do like to keep trying to do that it seems.

Which is odd as pointing out the failure of your arguement is not actually a "no you" rebuttal itself, it is actually addressing the flaw in your justification.

I'll chalk that up with "strawman" as another thing you really shouldn't try to parrot without knowing how it actually applies I suppose.

In the mean time, care to address.... any of the flaws in your arguments or justifications for your horrible behavior?

runic knight:

Saelune:
This is not up for debate. He literally called himself a White Nationalist. And that means only one thing. He is a racist.

where their intentional disregard for the context given to the statement is done solely so they can latch onto the term being used. This sort of response will be shown as an example of intellectual dishonesty of those who oppose him, and the blatant willingness to misrepresent his actual words and intention to do the equivalent of quote-mining him.

It plays into his hands and aids his and other people's efforts to downplay the term and muddy the water when people react like that.

It is like someone saying "I was killer last night. I kicked ass in that game." and some fool starts screaming about why the police aren't arresting them. That reaction is mocked for that response, and the positions held by those so eager to discard context are harmed in public eye by their association.

runic knight:
where their intentional disregard for the context given to the statement is done solely so they can latch onto the term being used. This sort of response will be shown as an example of intellectual dishonesty of those who oppose him, and the blatant willingness to misrepresent his actual words and intention to do the equivalent of quote-mining him.

Stop saying things I can just quote back at you verbatim.

That we are even having this argument is absurd. He identifies himself as a White Nationalist, that means and only means he is a white supremacist and is racist against literally all non-whites. To argue otherwise is to literally argue against fact.

Saelune:

runic knight:

Saelune:
This is not up for debate. He literally called himself a White Nationalist. And that means only one thing. He is a racist.

where their intentional disregard for the context given to the statement is done solely so they can latch onto the term being used. This sort of response will be shown as an example of intellectual dishonesty of those who oppose him, and the blatant willingness to misrepresent his actual words and intention to do the equivalent of quote-mining him.

It plays into his hands and aids his and other people's efforts to downplay the term and muddy the water when people react like that.

It is like someone saying "I was killer last night. I kicked ass in that game." and some fool starts screaming about why the police aren't arresting them. That reaction is mocked for that response, and the positions held by those so eager to discard context are harmed in public eye by their association.

runic knight:
where their intentional disregard for the context given to the statement is done solely so they can latch onto the term being used. This sort of response will be shown as an example of intellectual dishonesty of those who oppose him, and the blatant willingness to misrepresent his actual words and intention to do the equivalent of quote-mining him.

Stop saying things I can just quote back at you verbatim.

Your intentional misunderstanding of terms and explanations just so you can try to "no you" reply, really doesn't actually make it the case you know.

Perhaps if you added some actual argument, or reasoning, or something more you might be compelling, but as it is, all you are doing is going "look at you!" like it changes any of the flaws with your own position or arguments.

It does not.

My pointing out those flaws in the first place still addressing your arguments.

You going "no you" is not, it is just attacking the messenger who pointed them out.

runic knight:

Saelune:

runic knight:

where their intentional disregard for the context given to the statement is done solely so they can latch onto the term being used. This sort of response will be shown as an example of intellectual dishonesty of those who oppose him, and the blatant willingness to misrepresent his actual words and intention to do the equivalent of quote-mining him.

It plays into his hands and aids his and other people's efforts to downplay the term and muddy the water when people react like that.

It is like someone saying "I was killer last night. I kicked ass in that game." and some fool starts screaming about why the police aren't arresting them. That reaction is mocked for that response, and the positions held by those so eager to discard context are harmed in public eye by their association.

runic knight:
where their intentional disregard for the context given to the statement is done solely so they can latch onto the term being used. This sort of response will be shown as an example of intellectual dishonesty of those who oppose him, and the blatant willingness to misrepresent his actual words and intention to do the equivalent of quote-mining him.

Stop saying things I can just quote back at you verbatim.

Your intentional misunderstanding of terms and explanations just so you can try to "no you" reply, really doesn't actually make it the case you know.

Perhaps if you added some actual argument, or reasoning, or something more you might be compelling, but as it is, all you are doing is going "look at you!" like it changes any of the flaws with your own position or arguments.

It does not.

My pointing out those flaws in the first place still addressing your arguments.

You going "no you" is not, it is just attacking the messenger who pointed them out.

You are literally doing all of this to me.

Saelune:
That we are even having this argument is absurd. He identifies himself as a White Nationalist, that means and only means he is a white supremacist and is racist against literally all non-whites. To argue otherwise is to literally argue against fact.

Except, it doesn't.

Because he is playing you like a fool.

He gave context that the way he uses it is not that of a white supremacist nor a racist.
That he is wrong in his use compared to general use is irrelevant to the fact that his explanation given at the very time of use itself shows his true intention and meaning intended.

It is like someone saying "I was killer last night. I kicked ass in that game." and some fool starts screaming about why the police aren't arresting them. That reaction is mocked for that response, and the positions held by those so eager to discard context are harmed in public eye by their association.

You want to call him a white supremacist with his use of "white nationalist" as justification. And he wants you to do the same because of how much it will make you look like an intellectually dishonest raving fool.

I would figure, regardless of everything else, you would at least hate the guy enough to NOT want to do exactly as you claim he wants you to do by saying he is trying to downplay the word.

Saelune:
You are literally doing all of this to me.

Pointing out the flaws in your arguments and the failures that is your attempts to attack me instead of addressing them?

Yes, that is exactly what I am doing.

Perhaps you should address the arguments yourself instead of mistaking that criticism of your terrible arguments as criticism of you personally, and replying with attempts to demonize the messenger pointing out the flaws in your terrible arguments.

runic knight:

Saelune:
That we are even having this argument is absurd. He identifies himself as a White Nationalist, that means and only means he is a white supremacist and is racist against literally all non-whites. To argue otherwise is to literally argue against fact.

Except, it doesn't.

Because he is playing you like a fool.

He gave context that the way he uses it is not that of a white supremacist nor a racist.
That he is wrong in his use compared to general use is irrelevant to the fact that his explanation given at the very time of use itself shows his true intention and meaning intended.

It is like someone saying "I was killer last night. I kicked ass in that game." and some fool starts screaming about why the police aren't arresting them. That reaction is mocked for that response, and the positions held by those so eager to discard context are harmed in public eye by their association.

You want to call him a white supremacist with his use of "white nationalist" as justification. And he wants you to do the same because of how much it will make you look like an intellectually dishonest raving fool.

I would figure, regardless of everything else, you would at least hate the guy enough to NOT want to do exactly as you claim he wants you to do by saying he is trying to downplay the word.

So all it takes for you to believe a racist is not racist is for them to say they are not racist despite doing racist things?

Saelune:
So all it takes for you to believe a racist is not racist is for them to say they are not racist despite doing racist things?

No, that is overly reductionist and thus worthless.

You don't misuse the words someone use out of the contest they meant them in to claim the opposite of what they intended is their true position.

That is intellectually dishonest.

In this case, he used the term "white nationalist" in a different way that you, and gave perfect context for what he meant and why it was not the same as you would use the term. You can not in honesty and civility lie to yourself or others that he really meant it the way you did, in spite of the context saying the exact opposite.

His behaviors elsewhere and whatever arguments you wish to make regarding his actions there was never my complaint here, and was only brought up after the fact to justify the claim after it was called out for misusing his words so they remain irrelevant to my complain being your original argument about the use of the term itself.

Once again.

I am pointing out the flaws in your arguments and the failures that is your attempts to attack me instead of addressing them.

That is exactly what I am doing.

Perhaps you should address the arguments yourself instead of mistaking that criticism of your terrible arguments as criticism of you personally, and replying with attempts to demonize the messenger pointing out the flaws in your terrible arguments.

Perhaps you should actually support your single-sentence claims in reply or explain them, address your flaws, or explain how my own complaints have flaws.

You know, engage in a civil debate/discussion/argument.

runic knight:

Saelune:
So all it takes for you to believe a racist is not racist is for them to say they are not racist despite doing racist things?

No, that is overly reductionist and thus worthless.

You don't misuse the words someone use out of the contest they meant them in to clai mthe opposite of what they intended is their true position.

In this case, he used the term "white nationalist" in a different way that you, and gave perfect context for what he meant and why it was not the same as you would use the term. You can not in honesty and civility lie to yourself or others that he really meant it the way you did, in spite of the context saying the exact opposite.

His behaviors elsewhere and whatever arguments you wish to make regarding his actions there was never my complaint here, and was only brought up after the fact to justify the claim after it was called out for misusing his words so they remain irrelevant to my complain being your original argument about the use of the term itself.

Once again.

I am pointing out the flaws in your arguments and the failures that is your attempts to attack me instead of addressing them.

That is exactly what I am doing.

Perhaps you should address the arguments yourself instead of mistaking that criticism of your terrible arguments as criticism of you personally, and replying with attempts to demonize the messenger pointing out the flaws in your terrible arguments.

Perhaps you should actually support your single-sentence claims in reply or explain them, address your flaws, or explain how my own complaints have flaws.

You know, engage in a civil debate/discussion/argument.

I do not write more than I feel I need to. Word count does not dictate whether an argument is good or not.

You are now saying that 'Just because he calls himself a racist, and acts like a racist, doesnt mean he is a racist'. That is absurd. White Nationalist only means racist.

Do not ask for civility if you will not give civility.

Saelune:
I do not write more than I feel I need to. Word count does not dictate whether an argument is good or not.

Lack of providing one certainly does though. You provide unsupported and unexplained claims. That is not just not a good argument, that is not an argument at all. That is a worthless claim. That is not engaging in debate, that is demanding the person you are talking at accept your word solely on the virtue of it coming from you, as though there was any reason to take your word as worth anything in the first place.

Saying "no you" devoid of context, explanation, or comparison is not an argument. It is solely an attack on the character of the person you are addressing, and devoid of the context or explanation, as your single sentence replies are by very virtue of being so short. It is nothing but an ad hom and is as worthwhile as just calling me an asshole for all the value it has to the discussion or as an argument.

You are now saying that 'Just because he calls himself a racist, and acts like a racist, doesnt mean he is a racist'. That is absurd. White Nationalist only means racist.

I am not saying that.
See, this is why I call you out for terrible arguments, as this, this right here

THIS is a strawman.

That is not my argument or position at all, yet that is the position you claim I hold before you attack.

My position, as I just said before, was that you don't get to misuse the words someone use out of the contest they meant them in to claim the opposite of what they intended is their true position.

His behaviors elsewhere and whatever arguments you wish to make regarding his actions there was never my complaint here, and was only brought up after the fact to justify the claim after it was called out for misusing his words so they remain irrelevant to my complain being your original argument about the use of the term itself.

Your ARGUMENT there is wrong. Your conclusion may or may not be.

Do not ask for civility if you will not give civility.

I give civility despite the fact you do not, by still engaging you, addressing your arguments, and being patient with your intellectually dishonesty and general nonsense. I have not said you were a nazi, nor a white supremacist, nor any other term that would endanger you socially, financially, or physically to be called. I do not call for violence against you, nor justify it if it is done against you.

I criticize your terrible arguments, and I call out your horrible behavior and the flaws in your justifications of that behavior. As I explained before, being civil does not exclude disagreement, criticism, or even passionate response.

I will ask here though, do you think it is justified if republicans or any other group you would seek to be openly uncivil towards, were in reply to you and your group? Your initial post suggest you take umbrage with how "they" treat you as justification for being uncivil yourself. So if the majority that are not the monsters you pretend they are were to start acting as such in response to your own self-justified actions, would that also be seen as justified in your eyes?

runic knight:

Saelune:
I do not write more than I feel I need to. Word count does not dictate whether an argument is good or not.

Lack of providing one certainly does though. You provide unsupported and unexplained claims. That is not just not a good argument, that is not an argument at all. That is a worthless claim. That is not engaging in debate, that is demanding the person you are talking at accept your word solely on the virtue of it coming from you, as though there was any reason to take your word as worth anything in the first place.

Saying "no you" devoid of context, explanation, or comparison is not an argument. It is solely an attack on the character of the person you are addressing, and devoid of the context or explanation, as your single sentence replies are by very virtue of being so short. It is nothing but an ad hom and is as worthwhile as just calling me an asshole for all the value it has to the discussion or as an argument.

You are now saying that 'Just because he calls himself a racist, and acts like a racist, doesnt mean he is a racist'. That is absurd. White Nationalist only means racist.

I am not saying that.
See, this is why I call you out for terrible arguments, as this, this right here

THIS is a strawman.

That is not my argument or position at all, yet that is the position you claim I hold before you attack.

My position, as I just said before, was that you don't get to misuse the words someone use out of the contest they meant them in to claim the opposite of what they intended is their true position.

His behaviors elsewhere and whatever arguments you wish to make regarding his actions there was never my complaint here, and was only brought up after the fact to justify the claim after it was called out for misusing his words so they remain irrelevant to my complain being your original argument about the use of the term itself.

Your ARGUMENT there is wrong. Your conclusion may or may not be.

Do not ask for civility if you will not give civility.

I give civility despite the fact you do not, by still engaging you, addressing your arguments, and being patient with your intellectually dishonesty and general nonsense. I have not said you were a nazi, nor a white supremacist, nor any other term that would endanger you socially, financially, or physically to be called. I do not call for violence against you, nor justify it if it is done against you.

I criticize your terrible arguments, and I call out your horrible behavior and the flaws in your justifications of that behavior. As I explained before, being civil does not exclude disagreement, criticism, or even passionate response.

I will ask here though, do you think it is justified if republicans or any other group you would seek to be openly uncivil towards, were in reply to you and your group? Your initial post suggest you take umbrage with how "they" treat you as justification for being uncivil yourself. So if the majority that are not the monsters you pretend they are were to start acting as such in response to your own self-justified actions, would that also be seen as justified in your eyes?

No, you just reject fact. But here, if you really need it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism

You are the one making the claim that White Nationalism isnt racism, and since that is factually untrue, you have a steep hill to climb. Burden of proof is on you.

You keep defending Nazis and White Supremacists.

You are not acting civil at all. You are backhandedly insulting me throughout.

I dont even know what your last paragraph is asking. Republicans need to stop supporting bigots. If they support bigots, they too are bigots. That is just how it works. If they arent bigots, they wont support them, and yet, bigot after bigot is being put into power by Republicans. You are what you vote for.

Perfect example of ones of the problems of civility right here.

We have an incredibly obvious point that can be argued simply with supporting evidence in the guy's own words and a basic understanding of current events... and a dude arguing the opposite utilizing nitpicking and overly wordy statements calculated to bore anyone reading them to death and thus prove his point correct.

If one could just punch a Nazi in the face, this would have been over with much more succinctly. Of course this is also the internet so it's not like we could punch a Nazi anyway, but the thought would be nice.

runic knight:

So, just so I am clear.

You agree that it is often mistaken that people judge others over short-hand terms and iconography, as your example clearly show that such judgements are possibly flawed, but you accept that this is fine and that such judgements should supersede even explanations of what someone actually means to intend?

I have to disagree. Explanation and context included with should be first, especially if it contradicts generalizational judgements, and doubly so if it is done expressly and intentionally to run counter such judgements.

No. My point is thus

ObsidianJones:

The heart of the issue is that the majority gets to interpret what they want to interpret, and those of us on the fringes must go with their will. Not our own.

...

I do not get to define anything about myself. If I wear certain things, I'm a thug and there's no two ways about it. If I speak a certain way, I'm an excitable minority. If I have political leanings, it's not because I think they are the best way to carry and continue on as a human race. Nope. I'm black, so of course I'd vote that way.

It's galling to have to live like that, never having anything that you can do without having the rest of the world pigeon hole you as something... and then having someone take a term that racists use to call themselves and have the cheek to be indignant over it.

The problem is that the Majority (which in this case are White Americans) get to have a flexible reality that they can define and interpret as they wish. They get to define behavior, norms, and it seems now even familiar phrases.

You might be open to me interpreting the phrase 'Black Militant' to mean what I say, but will other people? Will the Government? After all, while removing White Supremacist groups from Terrorism the White House is paying attention to, they placed Black Identity Extremist Groups, a term I never even heard of until this Administration.

It doesn't matter that the Body Count of Right Wing Extremist far outreach the body count of other extremists. The majority somehow doesn't see the threat from them. So they can redefine the term, gussy it up to make it look nice and shiny and the government will nod and say "As you were".

If I go to a rally to protest another needless killing of an unarmed black person? I'll be more sought after by people who align themselves with the groups that have the highest body count in extremist killings. And that's not hyperbole.

"The FBI assesses it is very likely Black Identity Extremist (BIE) perceptions of police brutality against African Americans spurred an increase in premeditated, retaliatory lethal violence against law enforcement and will very likely serve as justification for such violence," reads the report, marked for official use only and obtained by Foreign Policy.

The August 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, was the catalyst for widespread anger and violence, the FBI report says, concluding that continued ?alleged? police abuses have fueled more violence.

"The FBI assesses it is very likely incidents of alleged police abuse against African Americans since then have continued to feed the resurgence in ideologically motivated, violent criminal activity within the BIE movement," the report states.

(Source)

This is the problem. This is what's wrong with the White Nationalist trying to redefine the term. Because the majority always redefines everything so it will fit them.

White nationalists beat a black man with pipes, killed a woman with his car, , Hell, the 3 day/3 attacks that we just went through. From this, we get to have discussions on what 'white nationalist' means and how one person gets to define it and how we shouldn't lump them all into one group.

That's not right.

More importantly, someone calling themselves a white nationalist will be less likely to appear on the law enforcement radar as I would if I attended a peaceful protest against the police in order to keep them from killing us wholesale. Again, not my words. I just linked you to where the government itself is saying that's how the world now is. How does that ever seem right in the world? Why can White Nationalists redefine the way we get to look at them, and I must be afraid to attend rallies to keep people from killing us with no oversight?

runic knight:

The guy is using a cheap trivial gotcha by playing with the definition of a word already loosened by over-use as a cheap trivial gotcha by labeling people who disagree with it. I agree. Even if you wish to conclude that this is all entirely done solely to downplay the word to cover his own beliefs, that doesn't make the poor decisions to react to it like a trained dog any less a foolish decision by playing into his hands and being the example to be pointed at as to why he "needed" to define it in the first place and how his opponents are intellectually dishonest in discarding his definition to instead latch onto the term alone and intentionally ignore the context he used it within.

You said to Saelune in a later post: "he is playing you like a fool". But in practical terms Saelune appears to have cut through this guy's guff and been correct - so that's quite a major tick on the "For" side of Saelune's tally.

Saelune can only look a fool through the judgement of observers. Or in other words, this white nationalist only plays people like a fool if we co-operate in letting him do so, and we can easily choose not to. This then leads us to a very important question: who is trying to help this white nationalist play other people for a fool here? And from that, why are they doing so?

If they are doing so, the first option is they are a far right sympathiser trying to spread the same message. Alternatively, they're not a far right sympathiser, but the lack of care and consideration put into their case puts them in a very poor position to criticise other people's lack of judgement.

Saelune:
No, you just reject fact.

Except, as I explained a few times to you now, I am not.

But here, if you really need it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism

And what relevance to anything I actually argued does this hold?

You are the one making the claim that White Nationalism isnt racism,

No, I am not.

Again, it is a strawman when you claim your opponent is arguing a position they are not, and then you argue that position instead of their actual one.

and since that is factually untrue, you have a steep hill to climb. Burden of proof is on you.

How fortunate that I have not made that claim then, and that this entire line of complaint is nothing but a strawman you are trying to claim I am arguing for, solely for you to try to push down instead of addressing my actual points.

Again, please argue what I have said in reality and what my actual points are, and not the ones you manufacture for me.

You keep defending Nazis and White Supremacists.

Where have I defended either? Remember, I told you already that being critical of your failures of reasoning or the terribleness of your justification for horrible behavior against people you unjustly demonize is not "defending" nazi or white supremacists.

Being critical of how you attack others is not a defense of their behaviors. It is just being critical of you.

You are not acting civil at all. You are backhandedly insulting me throughout.

I call out your arguments for being terrible by describing them as terrible. But unlike yourself, I am still refraining from open demonizing you as part of a monsterous ideological cult that wishes to kill those different than themselves, and I am not claiming you think race determines value in a society.

I am critical of you, and of your arguments, justifications, and behaviors. You call that insult and I can only laugh at interpretation as you think such is insulting, as you do far worse insult to far more people without concern. You are here trying to justify horrible behavior against people and fail to see why such behavior really doesn't even deserve the civility I give, but you call my response to your behavior and justification insult, as though your generalizing an entire group of people as literal murderers and racist is somehow not already casting aside any possible civil discourse for the sake of your anger to any but the most stubborn in trying to talk to you to highlight why you are in the wrong.

At the end of the day though, I am trying to engage in a conversation and demonstrate the failures of your reasoning and the worthlessness of your justifications to try to convince you why it is a bad position, through simple words, in a civil manner compared to other avenues available.

I can't decide for you if you take it as insult or not, but I think you do far worse to far more people from the start, and I think the sort of "insult" I have done so far is not uncivil behavior.

I dont even know what your last paragraph is asking.

You are not being civil. You are demonizing, generalizing, and slandering entire swaths of people solely to justify your hatred of them, despite how most have done nothing more than vote for politicians who support the issues that they often rely on for their and their family's health and well being.

Are those people justified in being not civil to you in reply to you not being civil?

Republicans need to stop supporting bigots. If they support bigots, they too are bigots. That is just how it works. If they arent bigots, they wont support them, and yet, bigot after bigot is being put into power by Republicans. You are what you vote for.

And by that logic, you support people who support communism, a national governance system that killed millions more than the nazi. You support people who support authoritarianism, a type of government control that fueled both communism and nazism and is what led to such atrocities.

You logic there is horribly flawed as applying it equally makes you even worse than those you demonize here right from the start. When you add in how it can only be done by discarding any sort of individual motivations or common sense solely for the sake of gross generalization, it becomes even more obvious in it's attempts to justify your own willingness to blind yourself to your own bias.

You argument has the exact same amount of validity as someone saying the democratic party supports racism because they founded the KKK. Because if you wish to discard context and common sense for the sake of worthless sloganism, that is the sort of argument you must also accept from others in return about yourself.

I could just as easily claim "you support people who support government systems that support mass genocide, and who aid the party that created the KKK". Who cares if it is actually true when you can just generalize and ignore all context and common sense, right?

Khellendrosiic:
Perfect example of ones of the problems of civility right here

No, we have a perfect example of the benefit of civility here. As a complete lack of it would have likely resorted in saelune being violent because they openly feel justified in their behavior, and then being violently opposed and destroyed in response by larger, more powerful, and more numerous forces reacting to such behavior with justification.

If one could just punch a Nazi in the face, this would have been over with much more succinctly.

This appears to be implying that this discussion would be over if they could just punch a nazi to silence them and thus end the discussion. Who are you calling a nazi here that they could have punched to end this discussion? I would love to hear who in the thread is one.

ObsidianJones:

The problem is that the Majority (which in this case are White Americans) get to have a flexible reality that they can define and interpret as they wish. They get to define behavior, norms, and it seems now even familiar phrases.

I find this statement is incorrect.

The majority, even defined by race, do not get any more opportunity or avenue to affect reality in a flexible manner than anyone else when you look at it on the individual level. That is, while you distinguish people based on race to make the generalization that white people get to have a flexible reality (and imply that non-whites do not), at the individual level a white person is no more or less able to have a flexible reality because of their race than a person of any other race. Reality is simply reality, and even presuming you mean "reality" as in how they can exercise self-determination and determine their own life, fate, and choices, this is still not some privilege that white people exclusively enjoy, as appears to be what you imply here.

What you point to is, being entirely generous to what you are going for here, is just a reflection of demographic sizes where the more numerous the demographic, the they can affect the collective reality in a proportional way. But that is ultimately sort of worthless as the same could be said for nearly any demographic. All except one that is: Financial class. Any other one though, from race, to right-handedness, to balding, to brown eyes are just reflected in their ability to affect reality, and get reality to reflect back through the culture and the lens of culture (the media), equivalent to their demographic size because individually, that ability is small among everyone.

To word it differently, it is like trying to make claims about how properties of marbles (color, shapes in them, patterns on them) affect how marbles sit in a jar, while ignoring that size is the only factor that has any real ability to affect that in the end. You are looking at how most large marbles are white and making the claim about white marbles in general. They aren't affecting things because they are white, they are affecting things because they are bigger marbles.

Your references of government actions also do not really show the pattern you wish to see either.
The link discussing "removing White Supremacist groups" talks about how it is switching focus of CVE to specifically islamic extremism. Link discussing the addition of "Black Identity Extremists" is response to riots and violent rhetoric because of the "blacks versus police" narrative. Your body count link is just used completely incorrectly, as the 18 deaths caused by "white supremacists" without even getting into how this was really determined or what indication there is they were motivated by that ideology, still pales in comparison to the death toll of distinctly ideologically motivated events like 9/11, making your statement badly in need of adjustment and clarification. And the following link outright just makes sense as to why it would not be seen as a real threat when the death toll is only 18 in a nation where according to that, you are more likely to die choking on food in a restaurant or, again, from a large-scale terrorist attack caused by internationally-derived ideology (such as 9/11, or more recent and domestically, the 49 at one time from the nightclub shooting the year prior).

But that is all sort of related to the same problem. You are building your case to support the view you have, which is great you are building support for your argument as it is more than some other posters, but it very obvious you are starting from your conclusion and working backwards and in doing so, it both relies on implications that are just outright false (that of only white people being able to have their reality), and on pulling up examples that are better explained with simpler answers than some wider conspiracy.

More importantly, someone calling themselves a white nationalist will be less likely to appear on the law enforcement radar as I would if I attended a peaceful protest against the police in order to keep them from killing us wholesale. Again, not my words. I just linked you to where the government itself is saying that's how the world now is. How does that ever seem right in the world?

Is it because of your race, or your opposition to law enforcement that they would dislike you? Because I can assure you, if you protest the police openly, they will dislike you regardless the tone of your skin.

I recall a story about a guy protesting a street light that was illegally timed to get people tickets. Ended up getting an assassination attempt.

Why can White Nationalists redefine the way we get to look at them, and I must be afraid to attend rallies to keep people from killing us with no oversight?

You can try to redefine the way the world looks at you as well, nothing says you can not. And do note, this is his attempt to do that, and one that seems like it has obviously failed given the responses here and elsewhere.

As for your being afraid, you challenge a power structure built upon violence. Your race matters not at all compared to that action. That is why if you look throughout history, or even just around the globe today, it doesn't matter if same or different race, those that hold power built upon violence tend to scare those who oppose them. Sort of why protestors were seen as brave and courageous after all, at least when they remained civilly disobedient rather than just giving way to rioting or violence (after that point, things get messier and it starts to depend on your side of view if they are valiant opposers of tyranny, or violent destructive extremists). It is not a race issue, but a class and power one. That you see a pattern with race, ask yourself if that correlate to race because it is motivated by race, or if it correlates to race because race currently correlates to power differences and people like to reduce things to simple, visual differences like that, often to intentionally obscure the true imbalance by dividing people among themselves.

Agema:

runic knight:

The guy is using a cheap trivial gotcha by playing with the definition of a word already loosened by over-use as a cheap trivial gotcha by labeling people who disagree with it. I agree. Even if you wish to conclude that this is all entirely done solely to downplay the word to cover his own beliefs, that doesn't make the poor decisions to react to it like a trained dog any less a foolish decision by playing into his hands and being the example to be pointed at as to why he "needed" to define it in the first place and how his opponents are intellectually dishonest in discarding his definition to instead latch onto the term alone and intentionally ignore the context he used it within.

You said to Saelune in a later post: "he is playing you like a fool". But in practical terms Saelune appears to have cut through this guy's guff and been correct - so that's quite a major tick on the "For" side of Saelune's tally.

The assumption of the guy's intention is that he is intentionally trying to downplay the term by using it incorrectly. This could only be so if he knows he is using it incorrectly and isn't as dumb as he is pretending. But that would mean that he is thus baiting people to call him a white supremacist while using his words as "proof", with hopes they intentionally ignore the context he added to it. There is no other reason to do that except solely so he can play the fool and criticize people like them for intentionally being dishonest. Saelune and others like them doing that exact thing is playing right into his hands, yes?

The assumption is he is trying to downplay the term. Thus he must know what it means, which makes his use of it intentional, and the obvious response to the use of it the expected, and desired, outcome for him. The only reason I can see for this is to play critics and those most likely to use the word as a slur against opponents for fools by making them look intentionally dishonest, or maliciously incompetent. He could call it "fake news" and that claim would be true. This makes his detractors lose trustworthiness, and himself gain some in contrast, thus helping support his attempts to redefine the term to be more benign.

So no, their playing into his hands on this would not be a tick for their side if their side is opposed to him.

That would clearly be bad for saelune if they oppose him, to aid him in exactly what is claimed to be his motivation (that of changing the definition of the term, or just downplaying it so it is harder to use against him for legitimate issues)

Saelune can only look a fool through the judgement of observers. Or in other words, this white nationalist only plays people like a fool if we co-operate in letting him do so, and we can easily choose not to. This then leads us to a very important question: who is trying to help this white nationalist play other people for a fool here? And from that, why are they doing so?

Anyone who responds to his trap by walking right in would be considered helping his goal, if you work from the assumption his goal is to downplay the term by intentionally misusing it for the purpose of downplaying the impact of the word. In that regard saelune and the myriad of others like them would be helping his goal by walking into his trap.

As for why they are doing so, I think it is because they lack the ability to understand either how context matter when relying on quotes from someone when trying to make a claim about them, or realize that quote-mining and intentionally dismissing context only make them look dishonest, and by extension the person they criticize not as horrible as claimed to be.

If they are doing so, the first option is they are a far right sympathiser trying to spread the same message.

I would not consider saelune a far-right sympathizer, even if I fully understood he jump between helping someone downplay white supremacy, and someone who is right-wing while opposing the neo-cons left over from the bush era.

I suppose if you want to view them as one, that is up to you. Maybe you could argue they are intentionally being extreme as a sort of poe? Or by being so over the top in their aiding of his goal they are making themselves a bad example to be pointed at and displayed as a caricature of his opponents?

They say they are opposed to that, and they seem pretty strong in that so I myself wouldn't try to claim they are alt-right just because they are helping the guy though.

Alternatively, they're not a far right sympathiser, but the lack of care and consideration put into their case puts them in a very poor position to criticise other people's lack of judgement.

This might be closer to describe saelune, though it is poorly worded I think. The lack of care or consideration is something I have criticized them for already, with regard to how they intentionally ignore the context the statement was meant within, and thus how it undermines any attempt to be used as "support of the claim" by being so easily pointed to for being intellectually dishonest to include in there. As I said before, if you work from the assumption he is a white supremacist who knows what he was doing when he misused the term, then the criticism of him based on the term being used becomes a trap.

Going to extend that poor lack of care or consideration into saying they are in a poor position to criticize other people's lack of judgement seems weird though. Since saelune is working from the assumption that he is intentional in his use of the term and he has conniving intentions in its usage, I don't think they are arguing a lack of judgement on his part, but rather, a very deliberate one.

Also not sure how strongly that argument would really apply, as while a lack of care in one area could possibly reflect in other areas, that would only apply to any arguments they made that are unsupported or dependent entirely on themselves as an authority to listen to, as opposed to those that are supported by proper argument instead of character. Though they do make a lot of arguments without support that just default to their own insistence of the claim, thereby making it dependent on how much of a respectable authority on the subject they themselves are in order to be considered to hold any value. So I suppose that might be a valid way to address their claims as having only their personal authority to be based on, the lack of character demonstrated by such lack of care or consideration for context would make them very poor authorities to listen to indeed.

Eh, I guess it works ok if worded specifically as a response to their self-authority or just unsupported claims, and not solely as an attempt to handwave the entirety of their position solely because of their mistakes in intentionally ignoring context reflects badly on their ability to be intellectually honest overall.

Agema:

runic knight:

The guy is using a cheap trivial gotcha by playing with the definition of a word already loosened by over-use as a cheap trivial gotcha by labeling people who disagree with it. I agree. Even if you wish to conclude that this is all entirely done solely to downplay the word to cover his own beliefs, that doesn't make the poor decisions to react to it like a trained dog any less a foolish decision by playing into his hands and being the example to be pointed at as to why he "needed" to define it in the first place and how his opponents are intellectually dishonest in discarding his definition to instead latch onto the term alone and intentionally ignore the context he used it within.

You said to Saelune in a later post: "he is playing you like a fool". But in practical terms Saelune appears to have cut through this guy's guff and been correct - so that's quite a major tick on the "For" side of Saelune's tally.

Saelune can only look a fool through the judgement of observers. Or in other words, this white nationalist only plays people like a fool if we co-operate in letting him do so, and we can easily choose not to. This then leads us to a very important question: who is trying to help this white nationalist play other people for a fool here? And from that, why are they doing so?

If they are doing so, the first option is they are a far right sympathiser trying to spread the same message. Alternatively, they're not a far right sympathiser, but the lack of care and consideration put into their case puts them in a very poor position to criticise other people's lack of judgement.

Mmm...I'm pretty sure I understand what runic is getting at there, so perhaps I can shed some light on it. In trying to convince people of a point, restating facts is not the whole of the game. Another component is personal brand[1]. But in this context the most relevant is positioning strategy. The short version of which is that there are Six "R"s, which can be divided into Positive points (strengthening your position) and Negative ones (weakening your opponent's position).

"Positive"
Reinforce: strengthen positive attributes
Refocus: Add links between attributes or introduce new attributes
Redefine: Express potential weakness so that it is perceived as a strength

"Negative"
Reframe: Express potential strength so that it is perceived as a weakness
Redirect: Divert attention from strength to weakness
Remove: Undermine perceived strength by showing that it doesn't exist

In this conversation we're seeing two major arguments about this guy being racist. The first - and the one Saelune herself is championing - is that him identifying as a white nationalist is the proverbial smoking gun, and all the proof that anyone should need that Myers is racist. To quote her directly: "This is not up for debate. He literally called himself a White Nationalist. And that means only one thing. He is a racist." The other variation is that when you look at his history, his causes and stated rationales show a pattern of racism.

The former argument actually does the Redirecting for Myers. By focusing on that comment instead of the pattern, the argument that he is racist is undermined by presenting weak evidence as if it was the best evidence we had. It also makes it stupidly easy for Myers to Remove that point, as the comment in question was affirming a divergent usage where white nationalist was being used to mean a nationalist who was white. That is a bad definition, to be sure, but the simple fact that the comment was made in that context makes it ridiculously easy for him to argue that any claims of racism based on that statement are themselves based on miscommunication. Under this strategy, by the time we actually get to his damning political history, the idea has already been planted in the audience that we're throwing things at the wall and hoping something sticks. Conversely, focusing on his political history from the get-go is an argument he'd have difficulty defending against. While he might be able to spin each one, it's a much more daunting proposition and the underlying trend has already been laid bare and pointed out to the audience, weakening the potential spin.

Focusing on the tweet makes defending against it literally as simple as him saying "well if you look at the context, I obviously didn't mean it the way they're claiming". As an analogy, you could liken it to Casey giving the pitcher free strikes. It's a senseless handicap that is easily avoided by focusing on the stronger evidence, which we have to cite anyways to dispute the claim that we mischaracterized him.

[1] For instance, people will react very differently to the revelation that a Disney starlet does drugs than they will to the revelation that a Death Metal singer does drugs. This is due in large part to the fact that Disney and its stars try very hard to create a "Sincere" brand, which is enabled by wholesome presentation and hurt by 'bad' behavior, and the fact that Death Metal tends to play off of an "Exciting" brand image, which is often helped by 'bad' behavior rather than hindered by it

runic knight:

Saelune:
No, you just reject fact.

Except, as I explained a few times to you now, I am not.

But here, if you really need it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism

And what relevance to anything I actually argued does this hold?

In the second part you prove my first part.

'I don't reject fact, now here is me rejecting fact'

Asita:

Agema:

runic knight:

The guy is using a cheap trivial gotcha by playing with the definition of a word already loosened by over-use as a cheap trivial gotcha by labeling people who disagree with it. I agree. Even if you wish to conclude that this is all entirely done solely to downplay the word to cover his own beliefs, that doesn't make the poor decisions to react to it like a trained dog any less a foolish decision by playing into his hands and being the example to be pointed at as to why he "needed" to define it in the first place and how his opponents are intellectually dishonest in discarding his definition to instead latch onto the term alone and intentionally ignore the context he used it within.

You said to Saelune in a later post: "he is playing you like a fool". But in practical terms Saelune appears to have cut through this guy's guff and been correct - so that's quite a major tick on the "For" side of Saelune's tally.

Saelune can only look a fool through the judgement of observers. Or in other words, this white nationalist only plays people like a fool if we co-operate in letting him do so, and we can easily choose not to. This then leads us to a very important question: who is trying to help this white nationalist play other people for a fool here? And from that, why are they doing so?

If they are doing so, the first option is they are a far right sympathiser trying to spread the same message. Alternatively, they're not a far right sympathiser, but the lack of care and consideration put into their case puts them in a very poor position to criticise other people's lack of judgement.

Mmm...I'm pretty sure I understand what runic is getting at there, so perhaps I can shed some light on it. In trying to convince people of a point, restating facts is not the whole of the game. Another component is personal brand[1]. But in this context the most relevant is positioning strategy. The short version of which is that there are Six "R"s, which can be divided into Positive points (strengthening your position) and Negative ones (weakening your opponent's position).

"Positive"
Reinforce: strengthen positive attributes
Refocus: Add links between attributes or introduce new attributes
Redefine: Express potential weakness so that it is perceived as a strength

"Negative"
Reframe: Express potential strength so that it is perceived as a weakness
Redirect: Divert attention from strength to weakness
Remove: Undermine perceived strength by showing that it doesn't exist

In this conversation we're seeing two major arguments about this guy being racist. The first - and the one Saelune herself is championing - is that him identifying as a white nationalist is the proverbial smoking gun, and all the proof that anyone should need that Myers is racist. To quote her directly: "This is not up for debate. He literally called himself a White Nationalist. And that means only one thing. He is a racist." The other variation is that when you look at his history, his causes and stated rationales show a pattern of racism.

The former argument actually does the Redirecting for Myers. By focusing on that comment instead of the pattern, the argument that he is racist is undermined by presenting weak evidence as if it was the best evidence we had. It also makes it stupidly easy for Myers to Remove that point, as the comment in question was affirming a divergent usage where white nationalist was being used to mean a nationalist who was white. That is a bad definition, to be sure, but the simple fact that the comment was made in that context makes it ridiculously easy for him to argue that any claims of racism based on that statement are themselves based on miscommunication. Under this strategy, by the time we actually get to his damning political history, the idea has already been planted in the audience that we're throwing things at the wall and hoping something sticks. Conversely, focusing on his political history from the get-go is an argument he'd have difficulty defending against. While he might be able to spin each one, it's a much more daunting proposition and the underlying trend has already been laid bare and pointed out to the audience, weakening the potential spin.

Focusing on the tweet makes defending against it literally as simple as him saying "well if you look at the context, I obviously didn't mean it the way they're claiming". As an analogy, you could liken it to Casey giving the pitcher free strikes. It's a senseless handicap that is easily avoided by focusing on the stronger evidence, which we have to cite anyways to dispute the claim that we mischaracterized him.

No dude, he is a racist using racist terms to identify himself and that currently the Right have been consistently using making up straight up bullshit to defend themselves.

They literally coined the phrase 'alternative facts'.

[1] For instance, people will react very differently to the revelation that a Disney starlet does drugs than they will to the revelation that a Death Metal singer does drugs. This is due in large part to the fact that Disney and its stars try very hard to create a "Sincere" brand, which is enabled by wholesome presentation and hurt by 'bad' behavior, and the fact that Death Metal tends to play off of an "Exciting" brand image, which is often helped by 'bad' behavior rather than hindered by it

Saelune:

Asita:

Agema:

You said to Saelune in a later post: "he is playing you like a fool". But in practical terms Saelune appears to have cut through this guy's guff and been correct - so that's quite a major tick on the "For" side of Saelune's tally.

Saelune can only look a fool through the judgement of observers. Or in other words, this white nationalist only plays people like a fool if we co-operate in letting him do so, and we can easily choose not to. This then leads us to a very important question: who is trying to help this white nationalist play other people for a fool here? And from that, why are they doing so?

If they are doing so, the first option is they are a far right sympathiser trying to spread the same message. Alternatively, they're not a far right sympathiser, but the lack of care and consideration put into their case puts them in a very poor position to criticise other people's lack of judgement.

Mmm...I'm pretty sure I understand what runic is getting at there, so perhaps I can shed some light on it. In trying to convince people of a point, restating facts is not the whole of the game. Another component is personal brand[1]. But in this context the most relevant is positioning strategy. The short version of which is that there are Six "R"s, which can be divided into Positive points (strengthening your position) and Negative ones (weakening your opponent's position).

"Positive"
Reinforce: strengthen positive attributes
Refocus: Add links between attributes or introduce new attributes
Redefine: Express potential weakness so that it is perceived as a strength

"Negative"
Reframe: Express potential strength so that it is perceived as a weakness
Redirect: Divert attention from strength to weakness
Remove: Undermine perceived strength by showing that it doesn't exist

In this conversation we're seeing two major arguments about this guy being racist. The first - and the one Saelune herself is championing - is that him identifying as a white nationalist is the proverbial smoking gun, and all the proof that anyone should need that Myers is racist. To quote her directly: "This is not up for debate. He literally called himself a White Nationalist. And that means only one thing. He is a racist." The other variation is that when you look at his history, his causes and stated rationales show a pattern of racism.

The former argument actually does the Redirecting for Myers. By focusing on that comment instead of the pattern, the argument that he is racist is undermined by presenting weak evidence as if it was the best evidence we had. It also makes it stupidly easy for Myers to Remove that point, as the comment in question was affirming a divergent usage where white nationalist was being used to mean a nationalist who was white. That is a bad definition, to be sure, but the simple fact that the comment was made in that context makes it ridiculously easy for him to argue that any claims of racism based on that statement are themselves based on miscommunication. Under this strategy, by the time we actually get to his damning political history, the idea has already been planted in the audience that we're throwing things at the wall and hoping something sticks. Conversely, focusing on his political history from the get-go is an argument he'd have difficulty defending against. While he might be able to spin each one, it's a much more daunting proposition and the underlying trend has already been laid bare and pointed out to the audience, weakening the potential spin.

Focusing on the tweet makes defending against it literally as simple as him saying "well if you look at the context, I obviously didn't mean it the way they're claiming". As an analogy, you could liken it to Casey giving the pitcher free strikes. It's a senseless handicap that is easily avoided by focusing on the stronger evidence, which we have to cite anyways to dispute the claim that we mischaracterized him.

No dude, he is a racist using racist terms to identify himself and that currently the Right have been consistently using making up straight up bullshit to defend themselves.

They literally coined the phrase 'alternative facts'.

Respectfully, Saelune, if that is your response to my post then I must question how thoroughly you actually read it. Not only did I not dispute the idea that Myers was racist, I attested as much myself in the very post you quoted. Additionally, in my prior post in this thread I laid out exactly what led me to that conclusion. So I am quite confused as to why you seem to believe that your post contradicts anything I said.

What I did argue is that by focusing solely on a statement made in ambiguous context like you are, you're pointlessly kneecapping yourself. That it pointlessly argues the point solely on terms Myers can actually debate with some degree of success rather than invoking the evidence we have that can't be spun so easily.

[1] For instance, people will react very differently to the revelation that a Disney starlet does drugs than they will to the revelation that a Death Metal singer does drugs. This is due in large part to the fact that Disney and its stars try very hard to create a "Sincere" brand, which is enabled by wholesome presentation and hurt by 'bad' behavior, and the fact that Death Metal tends to play off of an "Exciting" brand image, which is often helped by 'bad' behavior rather than hindered by it

Asita:

Saelune:

Asita:

Mmm...I'm pretty sure I understand what runic is getting at there, so perhaps I can shed some light on it. In trying to convince people of a point, restating facts is not the whole of the game. Another component is personal brand[1]. But in this context the most relevant is positioning strategy. The short version of which is that there are Six "R"s, which can be divided into Positive points (strengthening your position) and Negative ones (weakening your opponent's position).

"Positive"
Reinforce: strengthen positive attributes
Refocus: Add links between attributes or introduce new attributes
Redefine: Express potential weakness so that it is perceived as a strength

"Negative"
Reframe: Express potential strength so that it is perceived as a weakness
Redirect: Divert attention from strength to weakness
Remove: Undermine perceived strength by showing that it doesn't exist

In this conversation we're seeing two major arguments about this guy being racist. The first - and the one Saelune herself is championing - is that him identifying as a white nationalist is the proverbial smoking gun, and all the proof that anyone should need that Myers is racist. To quote her directly: "This is not up for debate. He literally called himself a White Nationalist. And that means only one thing. He is a racist." The other variation is that when you look at his history, his causes and stated rationales show a pattern of racism.

The former argument actually does the Redirecting for Myers. By focusing on that comment instead of the pattern, the argument that he is racist is undermined by presenting weak evidence as if it was the best evidence we had. It also makes it stupidly easy for Myers to Remove that point, as the comment in question was affirming a divergent usage where white nationalist was being used to mean a nationalist who was white. That is a bad definition, to be sure, but the simple fact that the comment was made in that context makes it ridiculously easy for him to argue that any claims of racism based on that statement are themselves based on miscommunication. Under this strategy, by the time we actually get to his damning political history, the idea has already been planted in the audience that we're throwing things at the wall and hoping something sticks. Conversely, focusing on his political history from the get-go is an argument he'd have difficulty defending against. While he might be able to spin each one, it's a much more daunting proposition and the underlying trend has already been laid bare and pointed out to the audience, weakening the potential spin.

Focusing on the tweet makes defending against it literally as simple as him saying "well if you look at the context, I obviously didn't mean it the way they're claiming". As an analogy, you could liken it to Casey giving the pitcher free strikes. It's a senseless handicap that is easily avoided by focusing on the stronger evidence, which we have to cite anyways to dispute the claim that we mischaracterized him.

No dude, he is a racist using racist terms to identify himself and that currently the Right have been consistently using making up straight up bullshit to defend themselves.

They literally coined the phrase 'alternative facts'.

Respectfully, Saelune, if that is your response to my post then I must question how thoroughly you actually read it. Not only did I not dispute the idea that Myers was racist, I attested as much myself in the very post you quoted. Additionally, in my prior post in this thread I laid out exactly what led me to that conclusion. So I am quite confused as to why you seem to believe that your post contradicts anything I said.

What I did argue is that by focusing solely on a statement made in ambiguous context like you are, you're pointlessly kneecapping yourself. That it pointlessly argues the point solely on terms Myers can actually debate with some degree of success rather than invoking the evidence we have that can't be spun so easily.

You may be only giving it slight justification, but you are still giving any to a clear cut thing. You shouldn't need to go 'Well, yeah he is racist, but...' There is no but. He is racist cause he does racist things and calls himself a blatantly racist title.

If someone claims to be part of the KKK or Nazi party, then people shouldnt be debating people like me calling them what THEY CALLED THEMSELVES.

[1] For instance, people will react very differently to the revelation that a Disney starlet does drugs than they will to the revelation that a Death Metal singer does drugs. This is due in large part to the fact that Disney and its stars try very hard to create a "Sincere" brand, which is enabled by wholesome presentation and hurt by 'bad' behavior, and the fact that Death Metal tends to play off of an "Exciting" brand image, which is often helped by 'bad' behavior rather than hindered by it

I miss embedded videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8njPF3R_ww

'That's not a cross, that's a t...for tolerance'

Saelune:

Asita:
*snip*

You may be only giving it slight justification, but you are still giving any to a clear cut thing. You shouldn't need to go 'Well, yeah he is racist, but...' There is no but. He is racist cause he does racist things and calls himself a blatantly racist title.

If someone claims to be part of the KKK or Nazi party, then people shouldnt be debating people like me calling them what THEY CALLED THEMSELVES.

And again I get the distinct impression that you have not understood what I said, but perhaps that's my fault for being so longwinded. It's not that the conclusion is wrong, it is that you're pointing to the wrong evidence to make your case. In doing so you are giving Myers and his supporters an opportunity to effectively defend him. They would not have that opportunity if you focused on the compelling evidence instead of trying to turn the tweet into a smoking gun that proves the case by itself.

Asita:

Saelune:

Asita:
*snip*

You may be only giving it slight justification, but you are still giving any to a clear cut thing. You shouldn't need to go 'Well, yeah he is racist, but...' There is no but. He is racist cause he does racist things and calls himself a blatantly racist title.

If someone claims to be part of the KKK or Nazi party, then people shouldnt be debating people like me calling them what THEY CALLED THEMSELVES.

And again I get the distinct impression that you have not understood what I said. It's not that the conclusion is wrong, it is that you're pointing to the wrong evidence to make your case, and in doing so you are giving Myers and his supporters an opportunity to defend him that they would not have if you focused on the compelling evidence instead of trying to turn the tweet into a smoking gun that proves the case by itself.

My point wasn't to prove he was racist, because it is self-evident. My point was how fucked up it is that people are trying to redefine things like 'White Nationalism' as anything but racism. runic knight then decided to prove my point. Prior to that, everyone else understood. Dr.Thrax, Gethsemani, Trunkage, etc all understood.

It is wrong to try to pretend things like White Nationalism, the Confederacy and its flag, or Nazis are anything but absolutely racist and unacceptable.

runic knight:

ObsidianJones:

The problem is that the Majority (which in this case are White Americans) get to have a flexible reality that they can define and interpret as they wish. They get to define behavior, norms, and it seems now even familiar phrases.

I find this statement is incorrect.

The majority, even defined by race, do not get any more opportunity or avenue to affect reality in a flexible manner than anyone else when you look at it on the individual level. That is, while you distinguish people based on race to make the generalization that white people get to have a flexible reality (and imply that non-whites do not), at the individual level a white person is no more or less able to have a flexible reality because of their race than a person of any other race. Reality is simply reality, and even presuming you mean "reality" as in how they can exercise self-determination and determine their own life, fate, and choices, this is still not some privilege that white people exclusively enjoy, as appears to be what you imply here.

What you point to is, being entirely generous to what you are going for here, is just a reflection of demographic sizes where the more numerous the demographic, the they can affect the collective reality in a proportional way. But that is ultimately sort of worthless as the same could be said for nearly any demographic. All except one that is: Financial class. Any other one though, from race, to right-handedness, to balding, to brown eyes are just reflected in their ability to affect reality, and get reality to reflect back through the culture and the lens of culture (the media), equivalent to their demographic size because individually, that ability is small among everyone.

To word it differently, it is like trying to make claims about how properties of marbles (color, shapes in them, patterns on them) affect how marbles sit in a jar, while ignoring that size is the only factor that has any real ability to affect that in the end. You are looking at how most large marbles are white and making the claim about white marbles in general. They aren't affecting things because they are white, they are affecting things because they are bigger marbles.

Your references of government actions also do not really show the pattern you wish to see either.
The link discussing "removing White Supremacist groups" talks about how it is switching focus of CVE to specifically islamic extremism. Link discussing the addition of "Black Identity Extremists" is response to riots and violent rhetoric because of the "blacks versus police" narrative. Your body count link is just used completely incorrectly, as the 18 deaths caused by "white supremacists" without even getting into how this was really determined or what indication there is they were motivated by that ideology, still pales in comparison to the death toll of distinctly ideologically motivated events like 9/11, making your statement badly in need of adjustment and clarification. And the following link outright just makes sense as to why it would not be seen as a real threat when the death toll is only 18 in a nation where according to that, you are more likely to die choking on food in a restaurant or, again, from a large-scale terrorist attack caused by internationally-derived ideology (such as 9/11, or more recent and domestically, the 49 at one time from the nightclub shooting the year prior).

But that is all sort of related to the same problem. You are building your case to support the view you have, which is great you are building support for your argument as it is more than some other posters, but it very obvious you are starting from your conclusion and working backwards and in doing so, it both relies on implications that are just outright false (that of only white people being able to have their reality), and on pulling up examples that are better explained with simpler answers than some wider conspiracy.

Perception does indeed have a function in this conversation. But it's not as you say.

I can easily bombard you with facts, studies, and proofs. Such as White Doctors believing Blacks have a higher threshold for pain, so blacks are systematically untreated for pain management. Not my words. Doctors, professors gathered the data, interviewed people, and reported their findings.

The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) recently updated their findings and found as a general rule, yes, black criminals receive a 20% longer sentence than whites for doing the exact same crimes.

African Americans make up an overwhelming percentage of people wrongfully convicted of a crime. Latino, African American, and Poor neighborhoods still receive "low-quality school facilities that lack equitable access to teachers, instructional materials, technology and technology support, critical facilities, and physical maintenance"

And I point all this out to highlight the "Fake News" power that seems to exist in the majority's arsenal. All these facts can be diminished by simple words and phrases. Say these sources come from "SJWs", and a segment of the population will handwave it as feel good propaganda. Say that these reports come from the "Politically Correct" section of the Government, and some people will consider these to be made up lies.

All these things being put together is the pattern that is shown to me. I take exception to the idea of 'wishing to see', but no matter. The idea of someone looking at the government reporting on unequal education, abysmal medical care due to myths, harsher sentences, higher rate of false incarceration, the government removing white extremist terrorists from their crosshairs and placing it on "BIE" even though there aren't any way near the same reported incidents of BIE violence compared to white extremist terrorist events.... and then that person saying "This all doesn't seem to be related" boggles my mind.

You presented a case that I'm coming from a conclusion and working my way backwards to try to substantiate what I want to believe. I invite you to question yourself in this moment. Because if you can look at all these incidents that seems to happen to minorities with such frequency and you can just shrug your shoulders and go "Unconnected Happenstance" instead of "A Pattern of Behavior", I do not know what can be gained by further conversation.

I'm really not trying to be rude. You've been nothing but a gentleman as you explained your side and I truly thank you for that. But that shows Perceptional Blindness that I don't know if mere words can penetrate. Again. I mean you no disrespect. The fact that you're speaking to me as an equal proves that you're coming from this as one person talking to another. I think that's essential. But just as equally essential is the ability to remove one's beliefs from the situation and piece together the facts.

I had to do that with my Christian Upbringing. I had to do that with racial bias (both placed towards me and my views on others). As I had to do that with countless other things in the world. What I'm saying and what has fueled my perception, I can (and have) linked the studies by the very government who has had a hand in all these dealings. I literally don't know what else to do to show the world from this side.

If you choose to continue to believe what you do, go ahead and do so. But don't look at what minorities have to deal with and discount it because you choose to see it another way. We don't get the choice if we are truly concerned about our individual survival.

More importantly, someone calling themselves a white nationalist will be less likely to appear on the law enforcement radar as I would if I attended a peaceful protest against the police in order to keep them from killing us wholesale. Again, not my words. I just linked you to where the government itself is saying that's how the world now is. How does that ever seem right in the world?

Is it because of your race, or your opposition to law enforcement that they would dislike you? Because I can assure you, if you protest the police openly, they will dislike you regardless the tone of your skin.

I recall a story about a guy protesting a street light that was illegally timed to get people tickets. Ended up getting an assassination attempt.

Even if it is just the fact that we equate peaceful gathering to 'opposition' does show the fundamental disconnect between 'Action' and 'Perception of Said Action'.

People are unifying to make their voices heard. The Gathering isn't opposition. The Gathering is to make it known that we are not ok with how White Criminals who are armed, who've shot and killed untold amount of people, and/or who might have shot at the police are brought in but Black Suspects are shot within seconds and are treated like they can obey orders while grievously wounded. We're not saying every Black person a cop runs down is innocent. We're not even saying don't give the criminal more time if he does run from you.

We're saying running isn't a capital offense. We're saying running isn't bringing harm to the police officer. When I went for my firearm license, I've learned that I would go to court for shooting a person in the back because he doesn't present danger. When I went to study for the NYPD, it was stressed in that book the same thing. And yet I see police officers do it with disturbing regularity and citizenry saying "Well, that's what he gets for running".

It patiently isn't. And it's disturbing that simply trying to get that message out to both Police and average citizens is usually met with such a mindset.

Let it be known. I want every person to make it back home to their families. I don't want a situation where a cop doesn't drawn to protect his life if it's seriously in danger because he's afraid of what the write up is going to look like. But bare in mind, I do not begrudge any black person who runs from the cops for whatever reason when we have to hold John Crawford III (Officer Not Charged even though his actions killed a bystander by giving her a heart attack), Eric Garner (Officer found [url=]Not Guilty[/url] even though Choke Holds have been banned from NYPD use),Freddie Gray (No Federal Charges placed on them, allowed to walk free), Tamir Rice (Officer rehired somewhere else)...

I don't have a problem with a black person running. He's taking just as much risk (if not more) than an officer. It's something we as citizens need to work out, but that comes from accurate and equal standing. And as I've seen my entire life, that's something the police do not want. Like you said, if I say anything that they can interpret as 'opposition', they won't like me. But I must take their actions as 'a few bad apples' or 'bad training'? Where is the fairness in that?

Why can White Nationalists redefine the way we get to look at them, and I must be afraid to attend rallies to keep people from killing us with no oversight?

You can try to redefine the way the world looks at you as well, nothing says you can not. And do note, this is his attempt to do that, and one that seems like it has obviously failed given the responses here and elsewhere.

As for your being afraid, you challenge a power structure built upon violence. Your race matters not at all compared to that action. That is why if you look throughout history, or even just around the globe today, it doesn't matter if same or different race, those that hold power built upon violence tend to scare those who oppose them. Sort of why protestors were seen as brave and courageous after all, at least when they remained civilly disobedient rather than just giving way to rioting or violence (after that point, things get messier and it starts to depend on your side of view if they are valiant opposers of tyranny, or violent destructive extremists). It is not a race issue, but a class and power one. That you see a pattern with race, ask yourself if that correlate to race because it is motivated by race, or if it correlates to race because race currently correlates to power differences and people like to reduce things to simple, visual differences like that, often to intentionally obscure the true imbalance by dividing people among themselves.

After all the things we've talked about, this is where I disagree with you the strongest. I won't go over all my points. They are up there for you to see. But I have to stress two things. One is a defintion. And the Other highlights a concept that shows how people like me can not define their own experience.

First part, as I'm sure you know, there is a racial and economic definition of the Majority and the Minority. It is the very reason why in my original statement I said this phrase.

The problem is that the Majority (which in this case are White Americans) get to have a flexible reality that they can define and interpret as they wish. They get to define behavior, norms, and it seems now even familiar phrases.

I get that this is a class struggle. I've said that in many post before. But in the case of this society, the Class struggle and the Racial Struggle happen to overlap in nigh perfect 1 on 1 synchronization. As much as people want to, it's almost impossible to separate the two. Hell, some of the richest people in this nation are athletes, and we still know how people treat them if they actually have an opinion on things.

But to the second part. The very concept that highlights and shows people like me can not do anything without the Majority's written approval.

Fear.

the Majority of people fear Blacks. Crime, Media, being the other... everyone has a reason. They get why Cops have to shoot in defense. We attack what we fear to survive. That's as human as human gets. And since the Majority fears Blacks, they have an understanding of that.

Minorities fear cops. Unanswered murders, media, being the other... These are all reasons. They get why people might run from cops even if they didn't do something wrong. Cops are more powerful than minorities, so they fear them. That's also as human as human gets. But the majority doesn't fear Cops. The majority does not have the same type of scenarios as minorities do. The majority sees the restraint that police have in bringing in the Dylann Roofs and the Robert Bowers of the world, so they apply it to everything.

But minorities do not see the same restraint for people that look like them. To them, Fear is a valid excuse, but it isn't to Cops and to the Majority.

The same human concept. Redefined by how you sit in life. Now, I can't redefine fear as a reason to run from cops if approached in a way that doesn't get me jail time... if not a bullet. But they can define fear that my actions will deserve that bullet because I might be doing something that will endanger their lives. That's the inability to define one's personal situation and how it strips a person of their own agency compared to the power of how others can do just that.

Seanchaidh:
Crying Nazi minces no words:

(Not directed at you Sean)

Remind me why -I- am the uncivil extremist here.

Asita:

Mmm...I'm pretty sure I understand what runic is getting at there, so perhaps I can shed some light on it. In trying to convince people of a point, restating facts is not the whole of the game. Another component is personal brand[1]. But in this context the most relevant is positioning strategy. The short version of which is that there are Six "R"s, which can be divided into Positive points (strengthening your position) and Negative ones (weakening your opponent's position).

"Positive"
Reinforce: strengthen positive attributes
Refocus: Add links between attributes or introduce new attributes
Redefine: Express potential weakness so that it is perceived as a strength

"Negative"
Reframe: Express potential strength so that it is perceived as a weakness
Redirect: Divert attention from strength to weakness
Remove: Undermine perceived strength by showing that it doesn't exist

In this conversation we're seeing two major arguments about this guy being racist. The first - and the one Saelune herself is championing - is that him identifying as a white nationalist is the proverbial smoking gun, and all the proof that anyone should need that Myers is racist. To quote her directly: "This is not up for debate. He literally called himself a White Nationalist. And that means only one thing. He is a racist." The other variation is that when you look at his history, his causes and stated rationales show a pattern of racism.

The former argument actually does the Redirecting for Myers. By focusing on that comment instead of the pattern, the argument that he is racist is undermined by presenting weak evidence as if it was the best evidence we had. It also makes it stupidly easy for Myers to Remove that point, as the comment in question was affirming a divergent usage where white nationalist was being used to mean a nationalist who was white. That is a bad definition, to be sure, but the simple fact that the comment was made in that context makes it ridiculously easy for him to argue that any claims of racism based on that statement are themselves based on miscommunication. Under this strategy, by the time we actually get to his damning political history, the idea has already been planted in the audience that we're throwing things at the wall and hoping something sticks. Conversely, focusing on his political history from the get-go is an argument he'd have difficulty defending against. While he might be able to spin each one, it's a much more daunting proposition and the underlying trend has already been laid bare and pointed out to the audience, weakening the potential spin.

Focusing on the tweet makes defending against it literally as simple as him saying "well if you look at the context, I obviously didn't mean it the way they're claiming". As an analogy, you could liken it to Casey giving the pitcher free strikes. It's a senseless handicap that is easily avoided by focusing on the stronger evidence, which we have to cite anyways to dispute the claim that we mischaracterized him.

I wish more people were like you here. That is exactly the point I was going for related to Sealune's argument about what the guy said. Thank you for that.

Khellendrosiic:
Yes, I am indeed implying that you need to be punched and that you're a Nazi. The fact that you routinely write dissertation quantity posts in defense of their values implies you believe strongly in what you're saying. And since there isn't much point to arguing with such deeply held beliefs, it would be much easier to punch you.

You are more than welcome to try to find where I have written posts in defense of nazi values, but I know for a fact they don't exist. All you will find is protest or dissection of posts by people who claim they fight nazi, and as I have said a few times, being critical of someone's terrible arguments, horrible behavior, or worthless justifications is not the same thing as believing in the ideology of the people they claim they oppose.

But thank you for highlighting a point about the utter worthlessness of calling people you dislike "nazi" when they criticize you solely for the sake of demonizing them. It solves nothing, convinces no one, and makes you look like a McCarthist who found a new "communism" to throw around.

ObsidianJones:
Perception does indeed have a function in this conversation. But it's not as you say.

I can easily bombard you with facts, studies, and proofs.

And when the dispute is with the pattern you see from them and the conclusions you make, all that you bombard me with comes off more as just a flood of links dug up to support your conclusion after the fact, rather than a compelling argument formed leading to it.

And that was the same problem as I mentioned last time.

Even you list of links has problems again, as you openly discard the intention of one study to try to make it support your conclusion. From the study black criminals receiving longer sentences

Because multivariate regression analysis cannot control for all of
the factors that judges may consider, the results of the analyses presented
in this report should be interpreted with caution and should not be taken
to suggest discrimination on the part of judges. Multivariate analysis
cannot explain why the observed differences in sentencing outcomes
exist, but only that they do exist.

And that is not even going into the flaw with their attempt to control for prior criminal behavior was limited to the existence of violent crime, rather than all crime or the previous frequency of it, and that according to the study itself, women across all race receive roughly 30% shorter sentences for the same crime, thereby making that difference even more important than the one you latched onto, but which would entirely run counter to your position that race is the heaviest factor.

The wrongful convictions doesn't control for income inequalities.

The topic of poorer income openly supports that income is the driving factor of the problem.

Do you see the point I am getting at here about how your argument really looks like it was reverse-engineers to support your conclusion rather than leading to it by examining the data first?

And I point all this out to highlight the "Fake News" power that seems to exist in the majority's arsenal. All these facts can be diminished by simple words and phrases. Say these sources come from "SJWs", and a segment of the population will handwave it as feel good propaganda. Say that these reports come from the "Politically Correct" section of the Government, and some people will consider these to be made up lies.

Yes, many may try that. But that doesn't mean the criticisms and flaws of those facts, and their lack of leading to the conclusion you want exclusively, are to be ignored. That some jackass dislikes them as facts doesn't change that even as facts they are often used in ways either intentionally ignoring warnings of not to be used in that fashion, or devoid of the proper context required to support the conclusions they are used to support.

All these things being put together is the pattern that is shown to me. I take exception to the idea of 'wishing to see', but no matter. The idea of someone looking at the government reporting on unequal education, abysmal medical care due to myths, harsher sentences, higher rate of false incarceration, the government removing white extremist terrorists from their crosshairs and placing it on "BIE" even though there aren't any way near the same reported incidents of BIE violence compared to white extremist terrorist events.... and then that person saying "This all doesn't seem to be related" boggles my mind.

It isn't that I do not see it related, it is that I do not see it caused by the factor you do. The correlation is there and I do no dispute that. More blacks receive longer sentences than whites, and that is a fact. But while you see that as because of their skin color, I question your conclusion for failing to properly control for that in gathering the data. There is a correlation between blacks and higher rates of financial problems, and a known correlation between poverty and lack of ability to mount proper legal defenses because of it.

I am not even going to make the claim it is because income here, as that will start a debate on that topic itself and I know I don't have enough support to claim that absolutely. But the fact that such things are not properly controlled for before making sweeping claims relating to the correlation is why I say it looks like you are working from a conclusion you want first. Because from all you have shown, you don't even have the data to say it isn't one of a myriad of other reasons yet.

To reference a controversial study with the same flaw, the IQ of people based on race would make disheartening generalizations about races themselves because of the correlation of data. Controlling for other factors though offers better explanation and more strongly suggests that race isn't the cause determining IQ.

You presented a case that I'm coming from a conclusion and working my way backwards to try to substantiate what I want to believe. I invite you to question yourself in this moment. Because if you can look at all these incidents that seems to happen to minorities with such frequency and you can just shrug your shoulders and go "Unconnected Happenstance" instead of "A Pattern of Behavior", I do not know what can be gained by further conversation.

Again, my position is not some handwaving casual dismissal of your position as completely unconnected, I rather openly admit the correlations there could be causation, merely that there is more than just your assumption that still works in explaining the data you have, and your lack of controlling for it before making your conclusion looks like you picked one possible one you preferred and are working backwards from there.

I pointed to financial because it also correlates, and remains consistent when controlled for across all other demographics in how it impacts things. And it reflects a racial bias consistent with the data you see without being dependent upon the racial aspect as causation. But it is just a top of the head thing to demonstrate that your data supports multiple conclusions and that to make your claim solidly, you need to control for and disprove the influence of all other possible factors first.

I'm really not trying to be rude. You've been nothing but a gentleman as you explained your side and I truly thank you for that. But that shows Perceptional Blindness that I don't know if mere words can penetrate. Again. I mean you no disrespect. The fact that you're speaking to me as an equal proves that you're coming from this as one person talking to another. I think that's essential. But just as equally essential is the ability to remove one's beliefs from the situation and piece together the facts.

You aren't calling me a nazi, so no worries about coming off as rude. As I said before earlier, civil discussion can be passionate, even heated, and still be seen as civil in my eyes. You've argued your point well and supported it and that is all I could ask, so no worries.

I had to do that with my Christian Upbringing. I had to do that with racial bias (both placed towards me and my views on others). As I had to do that with countless other things in the world. What I'm saying and what has fueled my perception, I can (and have) linked the studies by the very government who has had a hand in all these dealings. I literally don't know what else to do to show the world from this side.

If you choose to continue to believe what you do, go ahead and do so. But don't look at what minorities have to deal with and discount it because you choose to see it another way. We don't get the choice if we are truly concerned about our individual survival.

You do well to show the data that helped convince you. Honestly, I do mean that. But as I said before, while your supports do support your conclusion, it is not only that conclusion that it supports, so the next step would be to control for other factors and to really prove the causation itself can only come from what you claim. I'd start with first proving that it could not be, as you put it, unconnected happenstance, and then building from there to tackle other possible causes such as income, location, or whatever else that data could also support.

Even if it is just the fact that we equate peaceful gathering to 'opposition' does show the fundamental disconnect between 'Action' and 'Perception of Said Action'.

People are unifying to make their voices heard. The Gathering isn't opposition. The Gathering is to make it known that we are not ok with how White Criminals who are armed, who've shot and killed untold amount of people, and/or who might have shot at the police are brought in but Black Suspects are shot within seconds and are treated like they can obey orders while grievously wounded. We're not saying every Black person a cop runs down is innocent. We're not even saying don't give the criminal more time if he does run from you.

We're saying running isn't a capital offense. We're saying running isn't bringing harm to the police officer. When I went for my firearm license, I've learned that I would go to court for shooting a person in the back because he doesn't present danger. When I went to study for the NYPD, it was stressed in that book the same thing. And yet I see police officers do it with disturbing regularity and citizenry saying "Well, that's what he gets for running".

It patiently isn't. And it's disturbing that simply trying to get that message out to both Police and average citizens is usually met with such a mindset.

Let it be known. I want every person to make it back home to their families. I don't want a situation where a cop doesn't drawn to protect his life if it's seriously in danger because he's afraid of what the write up is going to look like. But bare in mind, I do not begrudge any black person who runs from the cops for whatever reason when we have to hold John Crawford III (Officer Not Charged even though his actions killed a bystander by giving her a heart attack), Eric Garner (Officer found [url=]Not Guilty[/url] even though Choke Holds have been banned from NYPD use),Freddie Gray (No Federal Charges placed on them, allowed to walk free), Tamir Rice (Officer rehired somewhere else)...

I don't have a problem with a black person running. He's taking just as much risk (if not more) than an officer. It's something we as citizens need to work out, but that comes from accurate and equal standing. And as I've seen my entire life, that's something the police do not want. Like you said, if I say anything that they can interpret as 'opposition', they won't like me. But I must take their actions as 'a few bad apples' or 'bad training'? Where is the fairness in that?

That lack of fairness is standard procedure for the type of power structure. As I said, throughout history and even around the globe currently, that sort of unfairness is common. I'd say the only uncommon aspect of it currently is that because of the nature of the nation itself, they currently have to attempt to justify their actions after the fact, as opposed to just ignoring the complaints, or cracking down and punishing dissenters. But with the current militarization of police thanks to the effects of the war on drugs and the escalation of stupidity that entailed, you have the current situation.

Calling out their behavior and demanding a change is opposition, as all protest is. It is a rejection of the current and opposing what has occurred. How it is portrayed and interpreted can vary, but it is inevitably an opposition to.

I fully agree with your positions here, both regarding police use of force needing better oversight (I personally think there should be no such thing as an internal investigation and it should be an agency separate from them in all regards that's sole job is to go in and do the investigations the second they happen and before the watchmen have to try to watch themselves) and in being clearer about what does or does not justify specific police responses.

The framing of it as a race issue I would say is horribly counter-productive. For one, it led to it being framed as "black people versus police", which really should have been avoided instead of embraced by those protesting the police. Slogans like "black lives matter" serving only to press it as a race issue (as opposed to one affecting all citizens), and opened itself to being twisted into saying the other lives don't (with people complaining about "all live matter" only adding to that), or to being claimed to imply that police lives do not (with the counter-slogan of "blue lives matter" cementing the "blacks versus cops" perception).

It is a problem for all citizens though. Even the data shows that more whites are killed by police per year than blacks overall.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

But if not pushed as an issue that affects everyone, and instead by concentrating on the racial aspect, it first breeds apathy for those who don't understand why it should affect them, and later breeds exclussionarism as the lack of support from other groups is blamed on racism against their cause, further isolating them.

After all the things we've talked about, this is where I disagree with you the strongest. I won't go over all my points. They are up there for you to see. But I have to stress two things. One is a defintion. And the Other highlights a concept that shows how people like me can not define their own experience.

First part, as I'm sure you know, there is a racial and economic definition of the Majority and the Minority. It is the very reason why in my original statement I said this phrase.

The problem is that the Majority (which in this case are White Americans) get to have a flexible reality that they can define and interpret as they wish. They get to define behavior, norms, and it seems now even familiar phrases.

I get that this is a class struggle. I've said that in many post before. But in the case of this society, the Class struggle and the Racial Struggle happen to overlap in nigh perfect 1 on 1 synchronization. As much as people want to, it's almost impossible to separate the two. Hell, some of the richest people in this nation are athletes, and we still know how people treat them if they actually have an opinion on things.

But to the second part. The very concept that highlights and shows people like me can not do anything without the Majority's written approval.

Fear.

the Majority of people fear Blacks. Crime, Media, being the other... everyone has a reason. They get why Cops have to shoot in defense. We attack what we fear to survive. That's as human as human gets. And since the Majority fears Blacks, they have an understanding of that.

Minorities fear cops. Unanswered murders, media, being the other... These are all reasons. They get why people might run from cops even if they didn't do something wrong. Cops are more powerful than minorities, so they fear them. That's also as human as human gets. But the majority doesn't fear Cops. The majority does not have the same type of scenarios as minorities do. The majority sees the restraint that police have in bringing in the Dylann Roofs and the Robert Bowers of the world, so they apply it to everything.

But minorities do not see the same restraint for people that look like them. To them, Fear is a valid excuse, but it isn't to Cops and to the Majority.

The same human concept. Redefined by how you sit in life. Now, I can't redefine fear as a reason to run from cops if approached in a way that doesn't get me jail time... if not a bullet. But they can define fear that my actions will deserve that bullet because I might be doing something that will endanger their lives. That's the inability to define one's personal situation and how it strips a person of their own agency compared to the power of how others can do just that.

The racial struggle is not a 1 to 1 overlap. The financial minority is the powerful one, and the majority are the less powerful, made up of people of all races. A white drug dealer on the corner holds just as much fear of a police officer shooting him as he runs as any other race, and the sharing of skin color with the officer (not a guarantee of occurring itself) does not make that less so. A poor white is not protected by their skin color, they are just another of the poor majority. Their struggles mirror that of the black poor or the hispanic poor in the same neighborhoods, and the only fear of the other groups comes from the conflicts caused by competing for limited resources and the discontent breed between the groups based on race to keep them divided among themselves.

Rich athletes, or other celebrities, routinely avoid prison, avoid criminal charges, or get far lighter punishments. This is true across all races. When they speak out, as I assume you refer to instances like kaepernick specifically here, in ways that harm the coming of money, they get backlash. But the idea that even that backlash hurts them in any real fashion in the end seems untrue.

The majority (the financial majority) hold a spectrum from hating and fearing cops, to trusting and respecting them. I do not dispute that fear explains reactions to them, nor that fear is used as justification for those exercising power to excuse their actions away.

Saelune:

Remind me why -I- am the uncivil extremist here.

Because you want to pretend that anyone who voted politically opposed to you is the same as that person and will demonize them and excuse social, financial and even physical violence against them just to justify your hatred of their entire group.

Someone else being horrible does not make your behavior not horrible.

I've clarified this before. Being critical of your failings is not an endorsement of those you oppose. You can both commit horrible behavior in your own, unique ways.

[1] For instance, people will react very differently to the revelation that a Disney starlet does drugs than they will to the revelation that a Death Metal singer does drugs. This is due in large part to the fact that Disney and its stars try very hard to create a "Sincere" brand, which is enabled by wholesome presentation and hurt by 'bad' behavior, and the fact that Death Metal tends to play off of an "Exciting" brand image, which is often helped by 'bad' behavior rather than hindered by it

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here