I just did a quick text search of the script… are you sure you haven’t confused indentured servitude with involuntary servitude?
~Max
…what part of “I had no interest in the answers your answers to the hypothetical, I was interested in how you responded to the hypothetical” are you failing to understand?
This thread isn’t about me.
Its about you.
Just watch the movie already. It will take you less time to watch the movie than it will to type out another boring, verbose post.
Evidently you wanted to see if I could put myself in the position of a black man, but because I require additional context I failed that test. So be it, I can’t satisfy everyone.
I might watch the movie sometime. I’m skeptical as to whether it will teach me anything I didn’t learn when I did research for a thread on the 13th Amendment and modern slavery as punishment for a crime, just a few months ago. Unless you want to talk about it after I watch it, or otherwise want the last word, we can leave it at that.
~Max
…the point here is that when you imagined being a black man: you wondered if they were part of a drug operation. You wondered about the gang running the farm.
These were the instant assumptions you made.
This tells us everything that we need to know. Every attempt you’ve made to clarify this is an attempt to walk this back.
You never asked if the white farmer was part of a drug operation. Or if the white famer was the leader of the gang. Because you identify with the white farmer. You can’t identify with black people. At all.
Was this you?
I mean, seriously, what the fuck?
You did research for a thread on the 13th Amendment and modern slavery as punishment for a crime, just a few months ago, yet you don’t appear to know the basics?
Watch the movie already.
To be fair to Max_S, some of us don’t like watching movies, or can’t, for a variety of reasons. I don’t know his, but I don’t like doing it. Reading the script is something I might do instead.
…if I thought that Max had the capacity to absorb what they need to absorb from reading words on the page I would agreee with you.
But this is a person who was incapable of understanding that a burning black cross sent to a black lawmaker was a threat. It’s a person who said this:
There is a difference between you reading a transcript, and a person who has shown a pathological inability to display empathy or understanding of groups of marginalised people.
Max needs to start listening to black people. To seeing them. Not just reading words on a page.
I’ve read plenty of Max_S’s debates. My complaint about him, if I’d had one, would have been that his posts tend toward dryness and tedium, a minor matter. Nothing that would impel me to join a pitting.
Until I could scarcely believe my eyes at the outright Ku Klux racist shit from Birth of a Nation he blandly presented as though it were merely reasonable and not drenched in the blood of lynched Black men and women crying out to heaven for justice. Max_S, damn you, that fucking crosses a line. Check your damn self.
I assumed this thread would be bumped over the “discussion” of how overwhelmed with hormones the female brain gets after having a baby and what wider implications this has for whether a 16 year old girl should be denied an abortion.
His comment in the reconstruction thread makes me think he actually is a troll, because I don’t think someone who was just weird and pedantic about online debates would accidentally stumble on something that was pretty obviously making that reference but still had plausible deniability.
That or he is, as @Miller opined, “what sealions are pretending to be.”
That was cringe all right, but that thread is already in the Pit. This pitting is the vehicle for protesting the turds he drops in Great Debates.
That’s profound and I think that is a perfect descriptor.
(chef kiss)
Not feeling too sharp-can someone explain? In small words?
A reasonable person interested in honest debate, where sealioning is understood to be a form of trolling.
As cmc says. A sea lion laboriously and obsessively, but with feigned courteousness, grinds through every last possible semantic nuance of an argument. They consciously and deliberately put on the mask of someone who is civil and respectful but is nevertheless very serious about hashing out every single detail in agonizing specificity. Ultimately, though, they don’t really care one way or the other; their true aim is to frustrate everyone with the endless spirals of logic, thereby disrupting the discussion.
The proposal here is that Max is the very rare example of someone who naturally exhibits the behavior of a sea lion but does not share the sea lion’s trollish, disruptive intent. If this is accurate, then he really, really does just like to legitimately, if annoyingly, argue about stuff.
Fuck that racist asshole. That is a troll post. No question.
Thank you both for your explanations! Those are very helpful.
Max strikes me as little better or worse than your typical child who has read some Ayn Rand and thinks they’ve discovered how the universe is intended to operate.
The internet being what it is, I can’t tell if he’s actually as amoral as he presents, or if he just thinks he’s sticking the courage of his convictions by taking his infantile ‘philosophy’ to its logical extreme. The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory would suggest the latter.
Presumably he doesn’t have a bunch of other young people with whom to get high and hash this shit out, and we’re the worse off for it.
He doesn’t give the impression of having voluntarily interacted with any other human face to face to any significant degree.
I would redact “reasonable” and insert “incredibly dense” in its place. An incredibly dense person interested in honest debate.
That’s best case scenario. But Max might just be pedaling a racist theory. He previously tried to, by his own admission, “rules lawyer” the Holocaust.