I’m completely accountable for my own words. I still stand by what I said. You lied about me and lied about what I said. Are you willing to be accountable for that?
Please point out where I said anyone was a racist simply for disagreeing with me, as you said previously. Can you do that?
I know you can’t, because it isn’t what I said. This whole argument is bullshit, because your friend made a mistake and couldn’t own up to it. He misinterpreted what I said, and let it go this far because of his own stupid pride. How you fell into it is beyond me.
Personally, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially on the internet, where intentions and tone can often be misinterpreted.
But in a case like this, where I was attacked even after I tried to rectify the misunderstanding, I refuse to back down. Own up to your mistake, or live with the posted proof of your own mistake, admitted or not. You haven’t got a leg to stand on, other than your senior standing here. That means nothing to me. What it might mean to others here I cannot control. I posted my rebuttal for my own integrity, and I am satisfied. You and your friend lied about me, and have not proven otherwise. I am done with both of you.
Are you IN-fucking-sane? Bob causes a ‘mass defensiveness’ and those folks who were defensive had racist tendencies.
You keep bringing that up. When have I pulled rank or claimed that my time here makes me right? Do you always need to invent an argument and ascribe it to someone else in order to have something to argue against?
Mmm hmmm. Bob causes a ‘mass defensiveness’, those who were ‘defensive’ had racist tendencies, in your eyes.
But you weren’t saying that those who were taking issue with Bob had racist tendencies. Nopers.
You agreed with Bob.
You said those who disagreed with Bob were “defensive” and racists.
Thus you said those who disagreed with you (and Bob) were racists.
Sets up an awfully simple syllogism, don’t it?
And that was, of course, more of the bullshit which pissed me off. Instead of taking accountability for your actions, you try to engage in mind reading and whinge about how folks’ve gotta have ‘personal issues’.
Please quote where I agreed with Bob. Please quote anything that corresponds to what you are alleging.
You’re not doing that, because you can’t. You’re reading way too much into what I actually said. It’s kind of sad.
If I had said that it was human nature that anyone could commit murder, would you have interpreted it to mean that I was accusing everyone here of being a murderer? Or you personally???
You misinterpreted what I said - IMO because of your own personal problems - and now you are trying to project something on me for saying it. Are you some kind of super human, above all the frailties of human nature as we know it? If so, I would apologize. Still, I’d have to wonder why you wouldn’t also understand why I might ascribe that weakness to us regular humans.
I think you’re just being an asshole here, drunk or not. Amazing what people will do to avoid admitting to error, but you are taking it beyond anything I ever imagined. Live and learn.
Jeez, you really are that stupid. In the post I’ve been quoting, you respond to Bricker’s question about why Bob was getting flack by suggesting that his points were not invalid but that he made people defensive and that they had unexamined racism in their hearts.
You say that Brickbacon’s arguments are “excellent” after saying that they’re pretty much the same as Bob. Again, this sets up a neat lil’ syllogism.
Your continued denials either mean you’re stupid, intellectually dishonest, or a mix of the two.
No, actually I think that, due to the personal problem of you being an idiot and a whinging schmuck, you refuse to see what your own words mean.
Oh, and, simply as an addendum, if you said that everybody wsa a potential murderer, yes, you should expect some people to take offense. People who aren’t cold blooded killers generally don’t like being accused of such things. Same as if you said something like “all men are potential rapists” you might just upset a few men.
I think the problem is, you are in fighting mode, and cannot hear what I am saying.
I didn’t come here to offend anyone. I didn’t think what I posted was offensive. It was my own opinion about racism in general. To be attacked as I was, under those circumstances, was very surprising to me. I’m still not sure why I was misunderstood - possibly a regional tone to my posting style - but bottom line is that I wasn’t trying to be provocative. I really thought it was a given in intelligent debate that people had unexamined racist tendencies.
And now we are here, where I need to defend this idea in order to defend my own integrity as an individual. Problem is, no one has told me why this idea is wrong. If it is, I’d really like to know that. I can entertain many ideas up to a point, but it is helpful if someone can point out why they are invalid, and not worth entertaining. You and your friend didn’t do that. Instead, you attacked me personally. Please tell me how that fights ignorance effectively?
I still don’t see how my idea about racism and human nature is wrong (according to you). Insulting me personally isn’t a compelling argument, and I have no idea why you can’t see that.
I said I was done with you, so my replies since then must seem superfluous. But since then I’ve come to think you are sincere - in that you think you are right. But how are you right? This was never explained by you or your friend.
If it is indeed wrong that all humans are naturally racist, then why can’t or won’t you explain that? And why is it so offensive to you personally if someone brings it up as a point in a debate about racism?
No.
I hear what you’re saying, and I’m pointing out why it’s odd that you can’t see the impact your words would have. Let’s go over this yet again, shall we?
If I say “It’s my opinion that under the right circumstances, you might molest children.” Should I expect some people to get upset? Or should I think that, hey, because it’s my opinion it’s all cool.
That is essentially as insulting what you’ve done by suggesting that people are closet racists. Nobody cares if it’s your opinion.
You keep saying you were misunderstood, but that it was your opinion that posters in the thread had ‘racist tendencies’. Yet again, them’s fighting words.
Largely because many people have most likely been offended that you’ve accused them of having racist tendencies. But maybe there are other reasons.
Well, just off the top of my head, racism has to be learned. Babies aren’t born hating people with certain features. In addition, you do not have a large enough sample size to generalize about all of humanity. Do you have any psychological studies to back up your claims as to ‘human nature’? Anthropological studies?
Sometimes, if someone insults you, you insult them right back instead of engaging in a factual discussion. Again, even if it’s only your opinion, you still called people racists. After you’ve done that, it’s strange for you to expect them to remain polite.
I wasn’t attempting to disprove your argument, simply reacting to the insult.
Again, if you call a man a racist, don’t act surprised if he acts as if you’ve insulted him. And if you’ve called someone a non-introspective racist don’t expect them to be happier than if you’ve simply called them a racist.
I didn’t because of the context in which it was delivered.
Had you wanted to start a GD thread and discuss what ‘human nature’ was with regard to racism, you probably would’ve gotten a good dicussion. But if you post something that looks like an insult (eg. saying people are being “defensive” due to their “unexamined racism”), and it’s in the Pit, don’t expect to get a fully civil response.
I would also point out, on a factual note, that even those poulations which are strongly xenophobic aren’t necessarily racist. And not all populations are xenophobic.
I think you are still in a fighting mode. What is with the “yet again” when you have never tried to explain anything previously?
Where is your own cite about racism being learned behavior? I’ve never heard that before as a settled issue. And I don’t consider racism to be strictly a measure of hatred. Maybe that is where we are misunderstanding each other.
Bottom line is, you decided to take offense to what I said, misunderstanding or not. It was not a given that you should have done so. Why you think that is a given is beyond my experience so far. There are many negatives in human nature - discussing them shouldn’t necessarily lead to personal offense or personal insults - or at least I was led to believe that this messageboard was above that. Maybe I was wrong about that, and I should couch my words more carefully in future, if I decide to post here again.
~sigh~
Because I have said, several times, that calling people racists is an insult.
It’s the null hypothesis.
Infants are born with very little in the way of ‘hardwired’ behavior.
Unless you can prove that babies are racist, then it must be learned.
Can you prove that?
Bottom line is, if you accuse people of being racists, they might very well ‘decide’ to take offense.
“Them’s fighting words”
Again, in the context you made your statement, you were saying those who disagreed with you/bob/brickbacon were racists. That isn’t even a generalization about human nature, but a direct insult.
(Or, if you want to quibble: that was the underlying logical structure of your post.)
Further, if you’re going to call people racists, or potential rapists, or cold blooded killers, or whatever, expect someone to take offense.
Well, if you can choose your words more carefully you might just make a valuable addition to this message board. You do seem like you’re honestly curious about why I responded the way I did, and that’s good.
You should always be wary of generalizations (including this one).
Saying “I believe anybody would steal if they thought they wouldn’t get caught” will most likely piss off some of the folks who are honorable and not thieves.
Saying “I believe that all men are potential rapists.” will most likely piss of some of the men who wouldn’t ever rape anybody.
Saying “All X are Y” will most likely piss of some X who don’t like being called Y.
You will most likely further compound any offense which you give by saying something like “Why don’t you like having it suggested that you might be a rapist? You’re acting somewhat defensive. What do you think that says about your unexamined rapist tendencies?”
Now, again, the context matters. Had you opened a GD thread to talk about ‘human nature’, you’d probably have gotten a good discussion going. But if you step into a Pit thread and suggest those who are disagreeing are racists, then you’ll most likely get flamed.
So I’ll make an invitation to you: start a GD thread on racism, ‘human nature’, innate knowledge, etc… and if you decide to stay on this message board, I’ll pay your regristration fee myself.
FinnAgain, I’d like to expand on what I said about racism not being strictly a measure of hatred, because it is an important aspect of what I was trying to say.
I’d like to say that it is more about our tribal nature as humans, and of course what we consider racial differences today plays a role in that. If I, as a (white) European-American encounters an African-American (black), I can’t help but be aware that we are from a different tribe. What this might mean is not necessarily hatred - and for me it is not - but it does register in my brain that there is a difference. I am recalling a study in JAMA where it was shown that humans registered identifying aspects - by gender, age, and race - in that order, whenever they encountered a stranger. Notice that race comes in third, after gender and age, but it is still there. That is part of what I am basing my theory on - that people need to identify others they encounter in a basic way. Race isn’t the most important aspect, but it does play a role in how we make decisions about about people we encounter that we don’t know.
So if we discuss someone like Al Sharpton, I would wonder if his race plays a part in how we determine our opinion of him. Can you understand where I am coming from when I say that? This would apply to everyone - black, white, brown, or whatever.
IMO, it’s very difficult to separate out the racial aspects when making that kind of determination - regardless of whether you are black, white or other. I’m not sure anyone can do that in an objective way, and I am naturally suspicious of people who say race isn’t a factor. I’m sorry if that is offensive to you or anyone else, but I really do believe it is a problem for humans of every race.
IMO, we are still tribal creatures, and still trying to work out how to justify that in a modern world.
I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from when I talk about racist tendencies - I didn’t think long posts were helpful or wanted, but if it keeps me from being attacked, then I am only indulging for self-preservation.
On the contrary, the members of this board are in most cases welcoming to new posters, not inclined to use the newbie stick for settling arguments. Most Dopers will cheerfully and politely set you straight if you’ve unwittingly gone against some SDMB custom, but won’t hold it against you.
And, of course, some of our members are capable of being self-righteous pricks who get stuck in attack mode, blinded by the froth flying from their e-mouths.
I’m glad you stuck around to explain what you’d meant by inherent, unexamined racism. I agree with that perspective, and find examples of such tribalism in myself, no matter how strenuously I try to eradicate it.
By the way, I disagree with this statement of yours: " I didn’t think long posts were helpful or wanted" – on the contrary, you’re encouraged to set forth your ideas here at whatever length required to make your points.
Well, of course some people use that opportunity to ramble incoherently, but from what I’ve seen you’re in no danger of that.
Yes, I think that thread might get some interest. Bob’s antics did far more to facilitate flames than honest discussion, and you kinda stepped right into the middle o’ that.
Well, there is a problem there, in that I don’t think most folks would call that racism. Doesn’t-look-like-me, doesn’t necessarily have any impact beyond that.
And I would argue that if someone had a meme that said “dislike anybody not from our community” that it wouldn’t be racist, as the race of those being disliked wouldn’t have anything in specific to do with it, only the lack of being part of that group. Various European and African tribes warred with each other for quite some time, and they were part of the same race. Heck, in some cases various clans/families within the same tribe warred with each other, too.
I’d still like you to define your terms a bit more if you don’t mind. Does your definition of racism begin at simply noticing ‘race’?
Ah, but there’s a difference between identifying something, and acting on it.
For instance, you told me that you’re a woman and not a man. But I didn’t decide to treat you any differently. It’s just another piece of data. And while it sounds fairly plausible for someone to think “he/she isn’t of my tribe”, I’m not sure that there needs to be any further implication. After all, I’d imagine, during medieval times one could just as easily have a xenophobic reaction to the next tribe over, whose skin/features were pretty much like yours, but maybe they spoke a different language, etc… Tribe doesn’t always equal race.
Yes, but I still think that the null hypothesis should be a test of their views/actions. If their views/actions, regardless of their race, are enough for people to get pissed, then we can assume that’s the cause. If the people who are pissed wouldn’t give a pass to members of their own ‘tribe’ for the same shit, then we can doubly assume that it’s a merit-based dislike.
No, it’s really not all that offensive in this context, at least for me. Your original remarks were, because essentially you stepped in the middle of a flame war and then said those who were disagreeing were racists :p.
But, now, why can’t someone do that in an objective way? Let’s say, for instance, that I think both David Duke and Farrakhan are assholes. And that I think so based solely on the fact that they’re hateful bastards. Why, then, do we need to complicate things by suggesting racism at work? Do I find Duke revolting because he’s from a different state that I am and thus not part of the Gothamite culture? Do I find Farrakhan revolting because he’s black, and thus not white?
Or do I find them both revolting based solely on their message?
Yes and no.
I’ll try to find a cite for you, but there have been many people who’ve argued that one of society’s problems is that the ‘tribe’ has totally broken down. Many of us don’t even know our own neighbors, let alone feel that we have a place to fit in.
It’s been said before that we’re in a post-modern age, and to a degree I believe that is correct. I think we are, for the first time, hitting a critical mass in terms of information, communication, education, scientific inquiry, etc… which will, in time, allow us to take the reigns of our own evolution.
Or, to steal a phrase:
" Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman-a rope over an abyss. A dangerous across, a dangerous on the way, a dangerous looking back, a dangerous stopping shuddering and.
What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under.":
Well, first off, it always pays to flesh out your posts and elaborate as much as you think is necessary to get your ideas across.
Second, again, a general intellectual discussion is different from stepping in the middle of a flame war and saying, in essence “Those who’re disagreeing with the OP’s claim that they’re racists? Them doing so shows racist tendencies.”
Maybe it was just an inoportune set of circumstances, and the whole tactic of “If you disagree with my condemnation of you it just proves my condemnation” is one of my pet peeves as well. Have you started that GD thread yet?
You know this is why I really love this board.
Two intelligent people are engaged in a flame war and they post through the night.
By Morning they are actually being civil to each other again.
I want to complement both FinnAgain and Fearless Reader for working past the initial venom and reaching a level where discourse took back over. I think you are both intelligent and bright.
EddyTeddyFreddy nice job helping to diffuse a bomb.
[spock] Your statement is illogical; it is anatomically impossible for a humanoid of my species to attempt you engage in intercourse with oneself. I also fail to see the benefits of such an attempt. [/spock]
).