In Dred Scott, white men on the Supreme Court ruled that no enslaved Black person had any rights that any white person was bound to respect. In Dobbs a mainly white male court similarly stripped women of what they’d enjoyed for a half-century as their integral rights.
Small consolation, to be sure, but in response to this systemic condition, on TikTok you can find an abundance of Black and women content creators who maintain that no white man can have an opinion that they are bound to respect.
My opinion that there is indeed a recalcitrant Black underclass due in part to its own unique self-imposed dysfunction is something I’ve heard expressed often by Black friends and coworkers. My nagging belief that a human fetus is a human being; and no human being can be fully stripped of its human rights, is something I’ve heard many women share.
But I’ve never been able to articulate these beliefs, with all the necessary nuances as they can.
Yeah, an ‘’‘objective observer’‘’ pointing out that that minority group is only committing some the crime is correcting the retorter’s claim and rehabilitating the racist’s claim.
An actual objective observer would point out that criminality is not an inherent characteristic of Minority Group XYZ, the crime statistics the claimer is using are woefully incomplete and clearly ignoring numerous other characteristics that are not minority group membership and that might be significantly more revealing.
As to the OP: when you find yourself agreeing with the margins of a reprehensible idea, and everyone except you who buys into it is an asshole, take the logical conclusion
But when you’re not alone in seeing things in shades of gray, it doesn’t mean you need to get your eyes examined.
We all learned the history of the Civil Rights Movement. Some of us experienced it as children ourselves. I’m outraged about the Department of Defense dismantling its results in the current administration. Meanwhile, my intelligence is insulted when some pseudo intellectual on YouTube claims that the ER doctor spit in MLK’s face and/or smothered him with a pillow. Outrage is stronger than offended, but I refuse to just shrug off the smaller lie as if I’d betray my outrage at the far greater one. Truth isn’t a team sport
A reminder, if you partially quote another poster, you must then indicate this clearly with a [snip] or other clear indication where you have edited said quote. In this case, regardless of the intent of the snip, you denied the quoted poster their qualifying clause. Not everyone is going to have read the full original quote so avoid this or document properly.
I thought your intent of the meaning was likely unintentional, thus my mention of intent in the ModNote. For those with any confusion, or if you see more modified quotes from another poster, here is the language from the TOS:
Quote attributed to real SDMB user . Quotes must be accurate, whether displayed using the message board’s quote function or ordinary quotation marks. Normal editorial rules apply. You may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” or devices such as [snip]. You may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”), but you may not add editorial comments or edit a quote to change the substantive meaning, nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the [QUOTE] tags or quotation marks. This applies to all forums including the Pit.
I find this is especially important in P&E/GD because of the charged nature of the discussions, and how easily it is to intentionally or not (see that bit again) alter the nature of another poster’s remarks.
Again, nothing on your file, no judgement on the nature of either poster’s argument, just trying to keep the playing field clear and level for all.
That link doesn’t work for me, though I can get to the same UPenn link through google. Interested readers can google Asimov relativity of wrong to get a different link if that one doesn’t work for them. Here’s an excerpt that maybe hits the general gist.
My answer to him was, “John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”
The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that “right” and “wrong” are absolute; that everything that isn’t perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.
However, I don’t think that’s so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so.
I’m reminded of all the police procedurals where someone innocent lies or otherwise obfuscates the truth because the circumstantial evidence would make them look guilty, or especially that it would support the claims of a slanderer or blackmailer. Is it legitimate to suppress inconvenient facts on the grounds that it’s necessary to arrive at “maximum effective truth”?
Where is anybody “suppress[ing] inconvenient facts” in these discussions? Or, what specific examples of “suppress[ing] inconvenient facts” in this context are you referring to?
I presume that you’re not asking for opinions specifically on the behavior of fictional witnesses in police procedurals, but rather intended that as an analogy for something else.
The board rules aren’t going to allow him to fully answer. This thread is about how that rule is handcuffing our conservative posters from expressing their deep-felt truths in a coherent way on this board.
As in “I have lots of relevant and convincing cites supporting this vaguely expressed general opinion, but I’m contractually prevented from posting them here”?
Well, as with the proverbial “girlfriend in Canada” reference, ISTM that in that case all we can do is say “Assertion noted, unsubstantiated” and move on to another subject.
You want to support the bigot’s stereotype, own it. If you want the navel gazing ecstasy of being right on the internet, you also get to own the bigotry that you’re helping to perpetuate, that’s the real part of this situation, the part that will long outlive your correction, and the part that will negatively impact people’s lives.
I’m not asking anyone to lie. If you feel yourself getting ready to voice limited and qualified agreement with a nasty bigot… just STFU. We’ll get by without your comment… somehow.
