[QUOTE=lissener]
This is a real world situation, with real world people. They were there, they say it was racism.
[/quote]
Yup. And I agree with them. Have from my very first reply in this thread. I cannot think of any plausible non-racial interpretation of what the shopper is reported to have said. I’ve repeated that statement 2-3 times here.
Did you somehow overlook this?
[QUOTE=lissener]
All you’re doing is strapping on some angel wings and doing a tapdance on the head of a pin: you’re just debating this in the abstract, as an academic exercise. Your entire position is “Anything is possible; anything can be debated into the ground until everyone involved just wants to shoot themselves to stop the sound of my voice.”
[/quote]
No. That’s not what I’m doing. Actually, I came in the thread fairly late. In my reply, I (i) agreed with the OP’s interpretation of the shopper’s comment (see above); and (ii) commented that the serious accusation of racism against Kalhoun (veiled though it might have been) did not seem justified by what she had said in this thread. See? Two different issues! It’s possible to think that the shopper is a racist without concluding that Kalhoun is!
(Don’t worry, I’ll give you the Cliff’s Notes version below.)
[QUOTE=lissener]
That makes you a boor and an asshole. If your motivation is not drily academic–i.e., if you’re not just a boor and an asshole–and you have some personal reason for sympathizing more with the racist than with the teenage girl whose been hated upon, then you’re more than likely a racist, boorish asshole.
[/QUOTE]
The logic, it burns!
Once again (although I despair of ever helping you grasp this point), nothing that I’ve said in this thread could even remotely be construed as supporting, agreeing with, excusing or sympathizing with the racist shopper who “hated upon” the teenage girl. You and I are in agreement when we conclude that the shopper was a racist and bad to the poor teenage girl. Maybe you have a vision problem? Should I say it again in a larger font?
That doesn’t prove that Kalhoun, who was not the Evil Shopper, is a racist.
And it certainly doesn’t prove that those who are unconvinced that Kalhoun is a racist (such as me, or for that matter Alice) are, as a result of that heretical view, racists themselves. (or “boors” or worst of all “drily academic”)
There’s no Transitive Property of Racism.
Let’s try an analogy, possibly hypothetical. You’re an asshole. I conclude that you’re an asshole, based on the evidence of your posts in this thread, and say so in a new thread. Another poster (let’s call him Poster Two) replies "You know, I’m not convinced that Random’s conclusion is correct. It’s just possible that, despite appearances, Lissener isn’t an asshole. Maybe there’s another explantion. Possibly, he’s stupid, instead. Or maybe he’s only 13, and doesn’t have the life experience to realize that opinions can differ without one side having evil motives. "
But I’m not buying it. I’m still convinced that you’re an asshole. (And, given the premise of this analogy, I’m right.) I am, accordingly, in disagreement with Poster Two. And I’m right, and he’s wrong. Must I therefore conclude that Poster Two is also an asshole, because he isn’t convinced that you are one?
Of course not. Even though his conclusion differs, and his logic is flawed, there are many, many other explanations for Poster Two’s opinion. He might be stupid, or unfamiliar with logical thinking, or be lacking in the life experience that would allow him to spot you as an asshole. So, even though you are an asshole, it does not logically follow that Poster Two is an asshole.
And, of course if Poster Three randomly wanders in, and says "You know, it does not logically follow that Kalh ooops, sorry, Poster Two is an asshole, even though it’s obvious that Lissener is indeed, indisputably an asshole. that doesn’t automatically make Poster Three an asshole, either.
Got it, or do you need the Cliff’s Notes version?