If it wasn’t blindly, then it’s even worse – since you were, apparently, not upset at all that a young man whose sin, at worst, was playing loud music and being obnoxious, was killed. And you called the dead kid a thug, when he did nothing violent.
It’s okay to back off a bit, and say something like “well, I am actually a bit upset when a kid gets killed who didn’t do anything remotely close to deserving death, and based on the evidence and testimony it’s probably not fair to call the dead kid a thug, so I take that back”. That’s a reasonable and defensible view. I don’t think “he’s a thug for playing loud music and being an obnoxious kid and I’m not upset at all that he’s dead” is, unless you’re going for ‘asshole who doesn’t bat an eye at dead black kids’ status.
His race has nothing to do with why I’m not upset by his death. No more than the race of anyone involved would matter if I laugh at the Darwin Awards or whatever.
You act like a dick towards someone with a gun, I’m not going to cry if they shoot you.
Unbelievable. I guess you’ve never acted like a dick when you were a teenager? And if you had, you don’t think anyone should “cry” if they had a gun and shot you?
Plus, you called him a thug. You called a dead kid who was shot for playing loud music a thug. Did you never play loud music? Did you never do anything obnoxious as a teenager?
God what a compassionless prick.
If someone shoots you, I’ll grieve – even if you were acting like a dick.
Yes, carrying a gun is one of life’s little shortcuts to unearned respect. Or, let’s be honest, fear— which is infinitely more delicious. When you’re white and packing, you’re above the social order; the rules no longer apply to you. The short stick you drew from nature grows to a respectable length. Disputes that would ordinarily require strength, or courage, or ingenuity, or any other commendable human quality to resolve can instead be settled definitively with a tiny squeeze. Or fuck, even some of those long ago confrontations you’ve never quite gotten over, when someone made you feel weak. Someone presents the opportunity, and you take it. It all balances out in the end, right?
People should be afraid of threatening or attacking another person, that’s not a bad thing. In an ideal world, that would come from fear of trial and conviction, not of being shot, but good luck getting to that world.
And I’m not calling him a thug for playing loud music. The arsehole didn’t just do that - in fact, the guy who’s car it was, who was playing the music, turned it down on request. The thug deliberately turned it up again - which is an admittedly minor hostile act.
He didn’t deserve to die for that, or even suffer, but it displays a level or arrogance, entitlement, hostility and stupidity that means I’m not gonna grieve for him. I’ll leave that to the people who thought more of him than “what a dick”.
But then I think the world would be better off without at least 90% of the people on it, myself definitely included. Don’t cry for me when I go.
So you admit that when George Zimmerman acted like a dick towards someone without a gun, he deserved to get punched? Funny I don’t remember you laughing about that.
Maybe it’s because he wasn’t shot by Martin. Because he would have deserved to get shot but not punched, right? Maybe that’s the key difference. Yeah, that must be it.
Arbitrarily grouping people by skin colour strikes you as entirely semantics?
Guess my experience differs…
The first one, yes, I would. the second one, no. It’s about the directionality of the relationship, and exclusivity implied. Hundreds of millions of people have dark skin and aren’t Black. But most Blacks do have kinky hair.
Other than the fact that I know biological race doesn’t exist, name one word I’m using differently?
It’s not even a “hostile act” – it’s extremely minor league teenage obnoxiousness.
Did you really never do anything worse than turning the music up to annoy someone as a teenager? Did no decent people you know ever do anything worse? Would you not have grieved them were they shot for playing loud music?
Such levels of “arrogance, entitlement, hostility and stupidity” sound like nearly every teenager I’ve ever known, at some point.
Don’t know why you’re clinging to “thug” as a reasonable description for a non-violent teenager who, at worst, did something less egregious than most human teenagers have ever done.
It certainly applies to a hell of a lot of teenagers, yes. A hugely disproportionate amount of violent and property crime is committed by teenagers and young adults, so that shouldn’t surprise anybody.
Doesn’t mean that everybody else should just have to put up with it.
Anyone who says it’s just normal teenage behaviour.
Accidentally pissing people off when you’re a clueless kid is one thing, and we pretty much all did it. Deliberately doing it again, and to a greater extent, when asked to stop is another. It’s the latter that I’m criticising. It’s arrogant, aggressive, entitled dickery.
Feel free to criticize bad behavior and dickery. Kids shouldn’t be dicks. But if they are dicks (and most of them at some point will be), they shouldn’t be shot… and if they are shot, they should be mourned, their killer should be put away (unless they mount a successful self-defense claim – and in this case, the killer failed to convince the jury it was self-defense), and they shouldn’t be referred to as “thugs”. “Thug” implies violence – not non-violent, every-day teenage obnoxiousness.
While I agree that I do get some satisfaction when any Darwin Award is earned, I agree with this. Kids can be idiots. They should have the opportunity to grow up and reflect on their idiocy. Then if Darwin gets them, so be it.
While I agree that I do get some satisfaction when any Darwin Award is earned, I agree with this. Kids can be idiots. They should have the opportunity to grow up and reflect on their idiocy. Then if Darwin gets them, so be it.:mad:
“Correlation.,” for one. You seem to think the word is directional. As far as I am aware, if X is correlated with Y, then Y is inherently correlated with X.
You have made two conflicting statements: “There’s no correlation between skin colour and Blackness, or hair texture and Blackness,” and “But most Blacks do have kinky hair.” The latter statement is inherently saying “There is some correlation between black people and kinky hair.”
Look, I think Stephan is a racist disease whose eventual death I will not mourn, but I don’t think he’s wrong when he said that race and appearance are not independent variables. Race may not be biological, but there are certain appearance traits that, when combined, will get you characterized into the social construct of being “black.”
No, it isn’t - because like I said, the kinkiest hair isn’t possessed by the Blackest people (they aren’t Black at all). So it’s not a bidirectional relationship (also, the straightest hair isn’t possessed by the palest people either, but that’s another matter)
He is.
This is true. But it bears no relationship to your actual biological nature, as the case of the “obviously Black” Andamanese, Negritos, etc. shows.
Yes, I do not argue against the idea that appearance is related to socially constructed race. This is true, but it’s also trivial, because it’s practically tautological. That’s how those races have been defined by previous racists. But I haven’t been using race in that sense, I’ve been using it in the biological sense that the racists on this board have been using it.
I thought you were of the opinion that there’s no such thing as biological race? Race is a social construct, with a far stronger correlation to appearance than genetics.
Because social race is defined tautologically, in the now-famous “I know them when I see them” manner you exemplify.
Hence the paper bag parties and pencil tests beloved of racists everywhere.
Irrelevant, since I’m not arguing (in this case) against socially constructed race existing.
That apparent race doesn’t correlate to genetics is kind of the point. You should totally tell this to Chief Pedant in a race realist thread at the earliest opportunity, since you’re totes not a racist and all.
I don’t recall ever posting in a “race realist” thread.
As for whether “social race” is defined tautologically, I’m not so sure, except at the level of white/not white and “passing”, which certainly isn’t an issue where I live.
No idea what paper bag parties or pencil tests are, should I have?
