*

Online junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5871
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2017, 08:40:54 PM »
Looks like the hate crime charges came down. Good.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

*

Offline Parsifal

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4206
  • Head Arthologist
    • View Profile
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2017, 08:45:43 PM »
https://twitter.com/BLMChi/status/817064657513017344

https://www.facebook.com/blacklivesmatterchi/posts/1847410538881888
Quote
What happened to the young man who was held captive and tortured is terrible and we condemn the violence that was perpetrated against him. We've stated time and time again, that we're against all types of harm and violence perpetrated and we've never condoned it.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that account. I've followed them on Twitter now.
There is free speech and there is being an annoying twat. This user is exercising his right to the latter.

*

Offline Luke 22:35-38

  • *
  • Posts: 224
  • The earth is round. Prove I'm wrong.
    • View Profile
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2017, 02:25:34 AM »
As a black guy myself I call this act an obvious act of racism. When you blurt out "F white people" then it's obviously a racist act.
Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth"

Scripture, science, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion. Can dumb luck create a smart brain?

Please PM me to explain sunsets.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5996
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2017, 08:46:58 AM »
either you and i have vastly different understandings of the meaning of "strong correlation," or you are merely ignoring that the overwhelming majority of blm supporters never use violence to achieve their political ends.
Yup, different definitions. I'm not ignoring the majority, I simply think it's completely irrelevant in this context.

You're concerned about the majority vs. minority, I'm interested in comparing ratios between groups.

I would consider a group where 20% of those involved happen to be violent racists to be more violent and racist than a group where 3% of those involved exhibit the same traits. While these numbers are not real stats, and are merely here to illustrate the point, my original suggestion meant to imply a comparison along these lines.

A response of "but you're ignoring the majority!" is going to work on me just as well as pointing out that the majority of feminists aren't insane. Minorities have an impact, often a greater one than the majority.

It's easy enough to yell "Black Lives Matter!" while curb stomping a white dude.  Doesn't mean they are even part of the organization. 
Yes, that's why I said "supporters". And yes, BLM condemned it. But it's *still* part of a bigger picture of BLM supporters doing absolutely ridiculous things and wondering why people think they might be a little bit ridiculous.

https://twitter.com/BLMChi/status/817064657513017344
The responses to that Tweet are top notch. With some luck, we won't have to deal with BLM for much longer.

https://www.facebook.com/blacklivesmatterchi/posts/1847410538881888
Ah, yes, a couple of sentences about how BLM dindu nuffin followed by a short essay about how the perpetrators are really the victims here. That will help convince people that they don't sympathise with violent racist criminals!
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 08:55:52 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #24 on: January 06, 2017, 05:22:23 PM »
I'm interested in comparing ratios between groups.

I would consider a group where 20% of those involved happen to be violent racists to be more violent and racist than a group where 3% of those involved exhibit the same traits. While these numbers are not real stats

ok well do you have any data?  or are we just going on how it feels or appears?  i wanna try one: there appears to be a strong correlation between trump support and nazism.  oh shit that was easy.  and fun!
 
btw that's not a particularly useful comparison.  see my previous example: someone who is resentful about feeling disenfranchised is both more likely to do violence to the object of his resentment, and more likely to join a group that advocates his enfranchisement.  correlations do not prove causation.  totally made up correlations supported by no data at all really don't prove causation.

A response of "but you're ignoring the majority!" is going to work on me just as well as pointing out that the majority of feminists aren't insane: i'm only interested in cherry-picking the most terrible behavior of the most terrible members of a group and then assigning blame to the rest of the group.  but only when it fits my preconceived political narratives.
word, i got you.

With some luck, we won't have to deal with BLM for much longer.
yeah fuck the enfranchisement of minority communities, fuck people who believe in those goals, and fuck the people who work nonviolently to achieve those ends.

but that denunciation of violence doesn't meet my exacting standards!
jesus christ.  ok.
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5996
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #25 on: January 06, 2017, 10:08:06 PM »
or are we just going on how it feels or appears?
I made no pretence of having any data: I said there seems to be a correlation. I'm basing it off of the disproportionate amount of crimes BLM supporters were convicted of. You and I both know about this, having discussed it before.

i wanna try one: there appears to be a strong correlation between trump support and nazism.  oh shit that was easy.  and fun!
And, most importantly, correct.
 
btw that's not a particularly useful comparison.  see my previous example: someone who is resentful about feeling disenfranchised is both more likely to do violence to the object of his resentment, and more likely to join a group that advocates his enfranchisement.
Hey, looks like I indirectly managed to get you to understand Trump supporters. Huzzah!

correlations do not prove causation.
Evidence vs. proof, etc.

[nice meme-quoting] i'm only interested in cherry-picking the most terrible behavior of the most terrible members of a group and then assigning blame to the rest of the group.  but only when it fits my preconceived political narratives.
You're resorting to "i am rubber you are glue!!!!" levels of debating. Take a deep breath and come back later.

But no, not only do I do it when it doesn't suit my political beliefs (I hope you didn't forget I'm not a Trump supporter - that would be awkward!!!!), I'm not doing it at all right now. The regressive-left camp, however, enjoys doing it oh so much. I'm glad fewer and fewer people are buying into it.

yeah fuck the enfranchisement of minority communities, fuck people who believe in those goals, and fuck the people who work nonviolently to achieve those ends.
Okay, here's your chance. Show us this "work". Show us BLM doing things other than burning their own towns, wrecking police cars, shooting cops (thanks, Mike Brown, nice movement you got started there). Tell you what, show us BLM doing anything useful, and I'll change my positionfrom "criminalise BLM plz" to "let the good BLM guys create a new movement first, then criminalise the rest of BLM".

Or show us that the likes of Shaun King, Alicia Garza, or DeRay Mckesson are in any way disenfranchised. Where, exactly, are these productive, constructive, disenfranchised black guys who just wish we'd all get along and treat them a little better?

[nice meme-quoting] but that denunciation of violence doesn't meet my exacting standards!
Right, again, take a deep breath and think about this. Having skimmed through other posts on the same page, the message sounds a bit like this:

Violence is bad. No, seriously, guys, it's bad. But you gotta think about those poor perpetrators. They didn't really do it, it was the white man that did it. And now they're gonna get "justice" for it... pah! This ain't no justice! We think people who commit these sort of vile crimes should get away with restorative justice -- but only if they're black. Now, look at these racist Trump tweets!!! #BanCopsNow

If you want to condemn violence, you condemn violence. You don't go "yeaaah, it's bad, but look at all these apologist arguments we can make! :D"
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 10:22:33 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

*

Online junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5871
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2017, 03:02:30 AM »
Or show us that the likes of Shaun King...these... black guys...


> Shaun King

> black guys

lol sexwarrior u crazy
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5996
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2017, 02:03:46 PM »
> Shaun King

> black guys

lol sexwarrior u crazy
That was very much deliberate :^)
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2017, 05:37:59 PM »
or are we just going on how it feels or appears?
I made no pretence of having any data: I said there seems to be a correlation. I'm basing it off of the disproportionate amount of crimes BLM supporters were convicted of. You and I both know about this, having discussed it before.

i wanna try one: there appears to be a strong correlation between trump support and nazism.  oh shit that was easy.  and fun!
And, most importantly, correct.
 
btw that's not a particularly useful comparison.  see my previous example: someone who is resentful about feeling disenfranchised is both more likely to do violence to the object of his resentment, and more likely to join a group that advocates his enfranchisement.
Hey, looks like I indirectly managed to get you to understand Trump supporters. Huzzah!

not even really sure what point you're trying to make here.  i don't think that the people who support trump and his ideology through nonviolent political activism are in any way responsible for the actions of violent nazis who also vote for trump.  they don't owe anyone an apology, and we don't need to solicit a denunciation of violence from kellyanne conway every single time a trump supporter beats up an immigrant while screaming MAGA.  even if every violent white nationalist in america voted for trump, it's wholly inappropriate to describe trump, the gop, or conservatism in general, as a violent ideology, or as a nazi ideology, or as racist, or whatever other awful pejorative we want to throw out there.  that's nonsense.

yeah fuck the enfranchisement of minority communities, fuck people who believe in those goals, and fuck the people who work nonviolently to achieve those ends.
Okay, here's your chance. Show us this "work".  Show us BLM doing things other than burning their own towns, wrecking police cars, shooting cops (thanks, Mike Brown, nice movement you got started there). Tell you what, show us BLM doing anything useful, and I'll change my positionfrom "criminalise BLM plz" to "let the good BLM guys create a new movement first, then criminalise the rest of BLM".

Or show us that the likes of Shaun King, Alicia Garza, or DeRay Mckesson are in any way disenfranchised. Where, exactly, are these productive, constructive, disenfranchised black guys who just wish we'd all get along and treat them a little better?

they're at political rallys not hurting anyone.  they're at voting booths.  they're in society being peaceful and productive.  "but what about this person who didn't do those things???"  i dunno what to tell you.  other people also exist.

you've already given yourself away: "With some luck, we won't have to deal with BLM for much longer."  for you this isn't really about opposition to violence.  your ideal end result isn't that people practice their beliefs nonviolently; it's the extinction of an idea you don't like.  you don't want to have to deal with the idea existing and being promulgated.

you don't have to look any further than your fucked up belief that supporting blm's politics should be a crime.

Having skimmed through other posts on the same page, the message sounds a bit like this:

Violence is bad. No, seriously, guys, it's bad. But you gotta think about those poor perpetrators. They didn't really do it, it was the white man that did it. And now they're gonna get "justice" for it... pah! This ain't no justice! We think people who commit these sort of vile crimes should get away with restorative justice -- but only if they're black. Now, look at these racist Trump tweets!!! #BanCopsNow

If you want to condemn violence, you condemn violence. You don't go "yeaaah, it's bad, but look at all these apologist arguments we can make! :D"

i see.  so the comments on the facebook page for the blm message condemning violence didn't meet your exacting standards, and of course blm is responsible for all the things that get written on its page.  lol glad we cleared that up.

where do you want to move the goalposts to next?

shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5996
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2017, 02:15:07 AM »
not even really sure what point you're trying to make here.  i don't think that the people who support trump and his ideology through nonviolent political activism are in any way responsible for the actions of violent nazis who also vote for trump.
...okay, maybe you still don't understand after all.

they don't owe anyone an apology, and we don't need to solicit a denunciation of violence from kellyanne conway every single time a trump supporter beats up an immigrant while screaming MAGA.
Well, I'm glad you think that (genuinely, no snark intended), but unfortunately the mainstream disagrees, and the double standard is a problem. When it's Trump supporters, it's Trump's fault - duh, that's a no-brainer, after all he incited all this violence. But when it's BLM, oh, oh no, goodness no, we can't link them like that, there's no causal link, only a weak correlation, and uh, can you even show a correlation? t-that's what I thought!

even if every violent white nationalist in america voted for trump, it's wholly inappropriate to describe trump, the gop, or conservatism in general, as a violent ideology, or as a nazi ideology, or as racist, or whatever other awful pejorative we want to throw out there.  that's nonsense.
If you remain internally consistent in that worldview, that's fine for the purpose of conversation (although I must have missed you getting upset when other groups were receiving similar treatment - how suspicious!). Unfortunately, we already have a precedent of "denounce your wrongdoing supporters or accept responsibility by proxy". It happens with Trump, it happens with SJWs, it happens with GamerGate, so letting it not happen with BLM is equivalent to giving BLM special treatment. And I see no reason why they should be getting it.

they're at political rallys not hurting anyone.
Rarely, but sure.

they're at voting booths.  they're in society being peaceful and productive.
wow nice movement, can I sign up without putting blackface on?

Oh, wait, I can just go and fucking vote and get a job without being a member of a proto-terrorist organisation. Whoop-de-doo.

"but what about this person who didn't do those things???"  i dunno what to tell you.  other people also exist.
You do know what to tell me, you just really don't want to say it, so instead you focus on "haha you said this thing you didn't say!!!!!" meme-discussions.

you've already given yourself away: "With some luck, we won't have to deal with BLM for much longer."  for you this isn't really about opposition to violence.  your ideal end result isn't that people practice their beliefs nonviolently; it's the extinction of an idea you don't like.  you don't want to have to deal with the idea existing and being promulgated.
Partially correct - in case of BLM, the ceasing of violence and the end of the spread of their message are one and the same, so the distinction becomes a bit blurred. BLM is rooted in lies, personal greed of their leaders, and violence of their misguided followers. If they were to present their arguments in a civilised manner, they would be a curiosity of little significance, kind of like hippies. Like "Haha wow, look at those people, they want to personally receive reparations for slavery. Oh well, they're not hurting anyone". They're only notable because they keep torching shit up and assaulting people, and since that's their only contribution to date, they should be criminalised.

People are welcome to be wrong, but once you start hurting others because of it, the rule of law should step in.

And yeah, I've given myself away soooo hard. I've been arguing against BLM's case since Mike Brown's shooting, much to your displeasure. I get it, though, you couldn't have possibly guessed that I might dislike BLM until this precise moment, my grand reveal.

you don't have to look any further than your fucked up belief that supporting blm's politics should be a crime.
Nice argument you've got going there. Care to respond to something I actually said? Supporting BLM's "politics" is stupid, but you're welcome to be stupid if you want to. I'll go further - your stupidity should not only be allowed, but should be subject to protection insofar that you shouldn't be discriminated against for being stupid. Being part of a violent hate group, however, should be as illegal as is the case with any other violent hate group. You shouldn't get brownie points for being brown.

i see.  so the comments on the facebook page for the blm message condemning violence didn't meet your exacting standards, and of course blm is responsible for all the things that get written on its page.  lol glad we cleared that up.

i see.  so the comments on the facebook page

so the comments

comments
What? Where did you get the word "comments" in what I said? I said "posts". You know, the things that the page has... posted. And yes, I would assume BLM Chicago is responsible for the things posted on BLM Chicago's Facebook page by BLM Chicago.

If they're not, perhaps they should clarify that on Twitter. Or are they not responsible for their tweets either? Hmm, perhaps they could try saying it on TV. No, wait, wait, are they responsible for the things they personally say, or is that still a stretch?

where do you want to move the goalposts to next?
I dunno, I'll probably pretend you said things you didn't say and then smugly respond to them. Maybe I'll tell you that you claimed everyone who voted Trump should be shot in the left testicle - what a fucked up claim that you totally made! You just gave yourself away!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: January 08, 2017, 02:38:09 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

*

Offline Parsifal

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4206
  • Head Arthologist
    • View Profile
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #30 on: January 08, 2017, 02:52:22 AM »


As usual, That Guy T is on point. It's interesting to hear the thoughts of a black guy who has felt the damaging influence of black culture in America and can also think critically about it.
There is free speech and there is being an annoying twat. This user is exercising his right to the latter.

*

Offline Parsifal

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4206
  • Head Arthologist
    • View Profile
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2017, 01:15:19 AM »


More fake news.
There is free speech and there is being an annoying twat. This user is exercising his right to the latter.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3100
  • cock-a-doodle-doo, darlin'
    • View Profile
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2017, 04:37:26 PM »
I've seen a lot of coverage and outcry (even from blacks!) about this incident.

I wonder why you aren't seeing it, Parsifal.

Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2017, 04:39:37 PM »
Well, I'm glad you think that (genuinely, no snark intended), but unfortunately the mainstream disagrees, and the double standard is a problem. When it's Trump supporters, it's Trump's fault - duh, that's a no-brainer, after all he incited all this violence. But when it's BLM, oh, oh no, goodness no, we can't link them like that, there's no causal link, only a weak correlation, and uh, can you even show a correlation? t-that's what I thought!

If you remain internally consistent in that worldview, that's fine for the purpose of conversation (although I must have missed you getting upset when other groups were receiving similar treatment - how suspicious!). Unfortunately, we already have a precedent of "denounce your wrongdoing supporters or accept responsibility by proxy". It happens with Trump, it happens with SJWs, it happens with GamerGate, so letting it not happen with BLM is equivalent to giving BLM special treatment. And I see no reason why they should be getting it.

poor reasoning isn't better simply because other people also use the same poor reasoning.  those people are also wrong and using poor reasoning to justify their arguments.  the solution is elevating one's reasoning, not sinking to their level.

this isn't a dilemma for me.  i think violence is always wrong, and i attribute the cause of violence exclusively to the people who choose to use it and advocate its use.  all use of violence should be prosecuted and criticized, and one can criticize the means without constructing irrational narratives about the ends.

do you genuinely believe that blm causes violence, or is this just some sort of misplaced rhetorical retribution?

wow nice movement, can I sign up without putting blackface on?

i don't understand why you only count as blm supporters the folks who do violence, but not the blm supporters who use exclusively nonviolent means, like voting.  that those people use entirely pedestrian means to achieve the same ends is precisely my point.

i support blm's politics: i agree with the notion that black folks in america are not treated with the same respect as, and do not have true political parity with, their white counterparts; i've been to a few rallys (none of which involved any violence, and my city was not burned in any way); i have cast ballots in local elections supporting candidates who have done the same.  what exactly are me and the nonviolent activists doing that is wrong?  in what way are we complicit in the violent acts of people in chicago, where i don't live?

Partially correct - in case of BLM, the ceasing of violence and the end of the spread of their message are one and the same, so the distinction becomes a bit blurred. BLM is rooted in lies, personal greed of their leaders, and violence of their misguided followers. If they were to present their arguments in a civilised manner, they would be a curiosity of little significance, kind of like hippies. Like "Haha wow, look at those people, they want to personally receive reparations for slavery. Oh well, they're not hurting anyone". They're only notable because they keep torching shit up and assaulting people, and since that's their only contribution to date, they should be criminalised.

People are welcome to be wrong, but once you start hurting others because of it, the rule of law should step in.

And yeah, I've given myself away soooo hard. I've been arguing against BLM's case since Mike Brown's shooting, much to your displeasure. I get it, though, you couldn't have possibly guessed that I might dislike BLM until this precise moment, my grand reveal.

the vitriol here is astounding.  yes, i was already aware that you dislike blm's politics.  that's my point.  your interest isn't really about the cessation of violence; it's about the cessation of a political philosophy you don't like, regardless of whether or not it's practiced in a "civil" manner.

criminalizing a political philosophy (not sure how else to take "criminalize blm plz") is, ironically, the very same thing you claim to be criticizing.  you're talking about using force and violence to stop people from peaceably advocating something you don't like.  punishing people for the violent acts they commit is already what the law does.

What? Where did you get the word "comments" in what I said? I said "posts". You know, the things that the page has... posted. And yes, I would assume BLM Chicago is responsible for the things posted on BLM Chicago's Facebook page by BLM Chicago.

i took the phrase "other posts on the same page" to mean the other posts on the page i linked in which blm denounces the violence.  my mistake.  i don't have a facebook account, so it wasn't obvious to me that you meant the other things blm posted on their facebook account.

i don't know what they say on their other pages or whatever, but i can certainly understand their frustration.  if someone took the attitude toward me that if i don't publicly denounce dylan roof then i must condone his actions (even though i'm not his fucking guardian or in charge of him or responsible for him in any way), then i'd be pretty annoyed, too.
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5996
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2017, 06:08:18 PM »
i took the phrase "other posts on the same page" to mean the other posts on the page i linked in which blm denounces the violence.  my mistake.  i don't have a facebook account, so it wasn't obvious to me that you meant the other things blm posted on their facebook account.
Right, so instead of realising that you're not familiar with the nomenclature on Facebook and brushing up on it, you assumed the absolute worst out of me. I think that tells us a lot about who here is filled with vitriol and uninterested in anything other than shutting up the opposition. (hint: it's you)

poor reasoning isn't better simply because other people also use the same poor reasoning.  those people are also wrong and using poor reasoning to justify their arguments.  the solution is elevating one's reasoning, not sinking to their level.
A nice suggestion, at least in theory, I'll admit that much.

this isn't a dilemma for me.  i think violence is always wrong, and i attribute the cause of violence exclusively to the people who choose to use it and advocate its use.  all use of violence should be prosecuted and criticized, and one can criticize the means without constructing irrational narratives about the ends.
This, unfortunately, is why it's only theory. Your application of this principle is very selective. I try to be more consistent. If the social norm is to treat these types of correlations as important, then ignoring it in just one case would be a bad idea. If you'd like to advocate for an across-the-board change, start with yourself.

do you genuinely believe that blm causes violence, or is this just some sort of misplaced rhetorical retribution?
Of course I believe it. There is plentiful video evidence of people who have been blinded by BLM lies committing acts of violence in the name of said lies.

i don't understand why you only count as blm supporters the folks who do violence, but not the blm supporters who use exclusively nonviolent means, like voting.  that those people use entirely pedestrian means to achieve the same ends is precisely my point.
I do count them. They're just much less relevant when discussing BLM's violence.

i support blm's politics: i agree with the notion that black folks in america are not treated with the same respect as, and do not have true political parity with, their white counterparts;
Do you only support that single principle, or the entirety of BLM's proposals?

i've been to a few rallys (none of which involved any violence, and my city was not burned in any way);
Lucky you!

i have cast ballots in local elections supporting candidates who have done the same.  what exactly are me and the nonviolent activists doing that is wrong?
Nothing at all. As I said, you're welcome to be stupid.

in what way are we complicit in the violent acts of people in chicago, where i don't live?
In no way at all. How is this unclear?

criminalizing a political philosophy (not sure how else to take "criminalize blm plz")
Hooly dooly! Now this is saucy stuff right here. To give you an idea how else it could be read: it could be interpreted in the same way as the calls to criminalise the Silver Legion of America, the Black Panthers, or the IRA. Of course, a vitriolic troll could suggest that criminalising these groups would also mean to criminalise political philosophies, but I'm sure you wouldn't stoop that low in your crusade ;)

punishing people for the violent acts they commit is already what the law does.
Precisely. I'm glad you've finally understood this.

you're talking about using force and violence to stop people from peaceably advocating something you don't like.
Literally not a thing I suggested.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 06:11:37 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2017, 07:16:15 PM »
i took the phrase "other posts on the same page" to mean the other posts on the page i linked in which blm denounces the violence.  my mistake.  i don't have a facebook account, so it wasn't obvious to me that you meant the other things blm posted on their facebook account.
Right, so instead of realising that you're not familiar with the nomenclature on Facebook and brushing up on it, you assumed the absolute worst out of me. I think that tells us a lot about who here is filled with vitriol and uninterested in anything other than shutting up the opposition. (hint: it's you)

actually what happened is that i took the phrase "other posts on the same page" to mean the other posts on the page i linked in which blm denounces the violence.  i didn't think it was ambiguous.  it was, as i said already, my mistake.  forgive me for not consulting my facebook nomenclature textbook.

i'm not even sure how it was unreasonable to interpret what you were saying as "look at all these comments by blm supporters whining about identity politics instead of denouncing the violence."  i mean that kinda fits right with what you're saying about blm supporters, doesn't it?  i get that that's not what you meant, but my misinterpretation hardly required malice.

lol or whatever keep taking it all super personally.

This, unfortunately, is why it's only theory. Your application of this principle is very selective. I try to be more consistent. If the social norm is to treat these types of correlations as important, then ignoring it in just one case would be a bad idea. If you'd like to advocate for an across-the-board change, start with yourself.

this makes no sense to me.  for one thing, how am i applying my principle of nonviolence selectively?  i think violence is wrong.  it's wrong when a trump supporter does it.  it's wrong with a blm supporter does it.  it's wrong to be violent regardless of your political beliefs.  what part of that is inconsistent?  i equally consistently don't think that the politics of a person who does violence has much, if anything, at all to do with the decision to use violence of achieve one's political beliefs.

for another, who gives a shit whether or not poor reasoning is a social norm?  are you listening to yourself?  that a bunch of dumb liberals justify their dumb arguments with dumb reasoning doesn't make the reasoning better when you do it.  why not be better than the people you're criticizing?

criminalization
since it's already a crime to do violence, then i don't understand how "criminalize blm plz" could imply anything other the criminalization of association between people with like-minded political beliefs.  forget that that's unconstitutional on its face: i can't find anything on any blm website that promotes the use of violence.  if you're not talking about criminalizing the means, then i you must be talking about criminalizing the ends.  that's why i say you are talking about criminalizing a political philosophy.  i genuinely don't understand how you could mean anything else.

i'm happy to take you at your word that you don't mean that, but you'll have to better explain what you mean.  what is the specific act that should be illegal?

also it's not illegal to be a black panther, to my knowledge.  and, no, i don't think it should be a crime to be a fascist, or a member of a fascist organization, or a white nationalist organization, or the kkk, or whatever else.  obviously i think that a fascist plot to violently overthrow the government and install a nazi dictator should be illegal; but, honestly, no matter how antagonistic the political philosophy, i do not think it should be criminalized.  white nationalist political philosophies are perfectly compatible with nonviolence.

and, finally, as much as i am disgusted by white nationalist politics, i genuinely do not believe that being a white nationalist makes you violent or more likely to be violent.  there are shitloads of folks with white nationalist politics that only ever try to achieve those ends with nonviolence, and they aren't responsible for violence committed by people who share their goals simply because they're shared.  those folks chose different means, and that's on them.
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5996
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2017, 10:13:53 PM »
i'm not even sure how it was unreasonable to interpret what you were saying as "look at all these comments by blm supporters whining about identity politics instead of denouncing the violence."  i mean that kinda fits right with what you're saying about blm supporters, doesn't it?  i get that that's not what you meant, but my misinterpretation hardly required malice.
No, it doesn't fit at all. You're welcome to think I'm unreasonable, but at least try to assume that my arguments are (more or less) internally consistent. But yeah, it's mostly super telling about your intentions throughout this conversation.

lol or whatever keep taking it all super personally.
Meh, nothing personal about it. It's just amusing that so much of your outrage towards me is caused by you choosing to reshape my arguments beyond recognition.

for one thing, how am i applying my principle of nonviolence selectively?
I clarified what principle I meant in the sentence afterwards, and I never referred to the principle of non-violence in this thread. I'm referring to your proposal that we shouldn't attribute BLM supporters' actions to BLM.

i equally consistently don't think that the politics of a person who does violence has much, if anything, at all to do with the decision to use violence of achieve one's political beliefs.
Hmm, perhaps you've just been very silent about it when it wasn't convenient...

why not be better than the people you're criticizing?
Because that would introduce an extreme political bias to the world (well, if enough people did it). As a moderate conservative, I'm opposed to the idea of punishing conservatives for <x> while letting liberals get away with <x> because we're better than them -  that would directly work against my interests. I try to be a good guy, but I haven't quite reached Jesus Christ's "turn the other cheek!" level of masochism.

i'm happy to take you at your word that you don't mean that, but you'll have to better explain what you mean.  what is the specific act that should be illegal?
Organised and structured   spread of misinformation catered to incite violence, be it racial or targetted at a profession, the exploitation of "underprivileged" individuals to advance personal political careers, and hate speech (n.b. that last one needs to be approached VERY carefully - easy to overreach, but ignoring it is also not a good idea).

also it's not illegal to be a black panther, to my knowledge.
Only because it imploded by itself. Naturally, as the similarities between BLM and BPP become more and more obvious, that question will have to be asked again.

and, no, i don't think it should be a crime to be a fascist, or a member of a fascist organization, or a white nationalist organization, or the kkk, or whatever else.  obviously i think that a fascist plot to violently overthrow the government and install a nazi dictator should be illegal; but, honestly, no matter how antagonistic the political philosophy, i do not think it should be criminalized.  white nationalist political philosophies are perfectly compatible with nonviolence.
Okay, so you're equating organisations and philosophies much more strongly than I am. To me, it's perfectly possible to be a white supremacist without being a member of a fascist paramilitary group, and so I would advocate for protecting the right of white nationalists to meet and talk while suggesting that the paramilitary organisation should be banned. I would also extend this to inciting violence. Saying "We want reparations for slavery" is stupid, but fine. Getting a crowd to walk through town shouting "PIGS IN BLANKETS, FRY THEM LIKE BACON" and demolishing everything in their way is both stupid and not fine.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 10:15:52 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #37 on: January 10, 2017, 04:36:11 PM »
No, it doesn't fit at all. You're welcome to think I'm unreasonable, but at least try to assume that my arguments are (more or less) internally consistent. But yeah, it's mostly super telling about your intentions throughout this conversation.

lol "my intentions throughout this conversation."  yeah you're not taking this personally at all.

you're just doing the thing where you assume that because something was really obvious to you, then it must have been really obvious to anyone, so anyone who doesn't see it that way must be a liar or nefariously out to get you or something.  but what actually happened is that i misunderstood what you said.  and then agreed that i misunderstood you.   

Hmm, perhaps you've just been very silent about it when it wasn't convenient...

for one thing, this website hardly represents the totality of my social life.

for another, i'm not aware of which posts or threads on this site are arguing that trump's political philosophy, and that of his supporters, is inherently violent.  i'm going off memory, but the closest i can think of is the criticism of trump saying that he would pay the legal fees of anyone who fights a protestor or whatever.  that was criticism of a specific action, though, not the movement itself, if i recall correctly.

can you give me an example of my inconsistency?

As a moderate conservative, I'm opposed to the idea of punishing conservatives for <x> while letting liberals get away with <x> because we're better than them -  that would directly work against my interests.

lol so you literally do see this as rhetorical retribution.  the quality of the reasoning makes no difference to you so long as your side gets a win against the bad-guys.  fuck that.

that dumb liberals use dumb reasoning to justify their dumb argument doesn't make it less dumb when you do it.  you're bringing society down by sinking to their level.  stop it.  join us in the land of 'judging individual actions and the individuals who do those actions and not requiring the additional step of making facile generalizations about them based on superficial connections to other individuals.'  you can still totally make fun of liberals from that perspective, too.

To me, it's perfectly possible to be a white supremacist without being a member of a fascist paramilitary group, and so I would advocate for protecting the right of white nationalists to meet and talk while suggesting that the paramilitary organisation should be banned. I would also extend this to inciting violence. Saying "We want reparations for slavery" is stupid, but fine. Getting a crowd to walk through town shouting "PIGS IN BLANKETS, FRY THEM LIKE BACON" and demolishing everything in their way is both stupid and not fine.

i genuinely don't understand what you're saying should be illegal.  breaking things that aren't yours and hurting people are both already crimes.  protesting without hurting people and breaking things is not a crime.  which thing that is not currently a crime do you think should be made a crime?

my whole point is that blm isn't like the panthers, the ira, or the silver fascist people.  those organizations explicitly advocated violence.  one of them literally calls itself an army.  those are not comparable to a movement that does not condone or advocate violence.

it's like drawing up a list of violence by buddhist terrorists and going "see!  buddhism promotes violence!  buddhism is a violent ideology!"  to reuse a good word, that's the very definition of facile.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 05:36:27 PM by garygreen »
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5996
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #38 on: January 10, 2017, 10:00:40 PM »
lol "my intentions throughout this conversation."  yeah you're not taking this personally at all.
You explained it better than I could:

that was criticism of a specific action, though, not the movement itself, if i recall correctly.
I am criticising your actions, not your person/personality. Once you stop twisting my words beyond recognition, I'll stop pointing out that you keep doing it.

but what actually happened is that i misunderstood what you said.  and then agreed that i misunderstood you.
What actually upsets me is that you've done the exact same thing I criticised BLM of - you conceded briefly, and then baited and switched to explain why you can understand why their posts are what they are.

for one thing, this website hardly represents the totality of my social life.
It's all I've got to work with.

for another, i'm not aware of which posts or threads on this site are arguing that trump's political philosophy, and that of his supporters, is inherently violent.  i'm going off memory, but the closest i can think of is the criticism of trump saying that he would pay the legal fees of anyone who fights a protestor or whatever. [...] can you give me an example of my inconsistency?
It doesn't have to be about Trump. Your views on systemic/institutionalised racism are a great example of taking a number of individual incidents and inferring a larger pattern from them.

lol so you literally do see this as rhetorical retribution.
No, and I already told you what I see it as, in the sentence just before the one you quoted. Which you conveniently omitted. To me, a consistent application of justice is absolutely essential. If you want to stop inferring group behaviour from a number of incidents, please demand that it affects everyone equally. When you only ask for this to be applied to BLM, you are requesting that they should be treated more lightly than everyone else. As part of "everyone else", I'm not okay with that. You, as a BLM supporter, obviously like the idea.

the quality of the reasoning makes no difference to you so long as your side gets a win against the bad-guys.
Not at all. At this point you made up an argument for yourself to fight, possibly to make yourself feel a bit better. But hey, you probably just "misunderstood" something obvious, so to clarify:

The quality of the reasoning is everything. Your reasoning is whack because you're asking that we apply one set of rules to people you disagree with, and another set of rules for BLM.

that dumb liberals use dumb reasoning to justify their dumb argument doesn't make it less dumb when you do it.  you're bringing society down by sinking to their level.  stop it.  join us in the land of 'judging individual actions and the individuals who do those actions and not requiring the additional step of making facile generalizations about them based on superficial connections to other individuals.'  you can still totally make fun of liberals from that perspective, too.
You're missing the point. I don't disagree that your approach is fine in theory. But there is a social and legal consensus and precedent for how these things are approached. To suggest that we should ignore that precedent for BLM is a facile attempt at propping them up against the odds. And honestly, if I'm bringing society down anyway, I'd rather do it through hasty generalisations than by feeding a bunch of rioting racists.

i genuinely don't understand what you're saying should be illegal.  breaking things that aren't yours and hurting people are both already crimes.  protesting without hurting people and breaking things is not a crime.  which thing that is not currently a crime do you think should be made a crime?
You seem to think that criminalising an organisation requires the creation of a new crime. While that is one possible use of the word "criminalisation", it is not the only one. To criminalise a fascist organisation means to recognise them as a criminal organisation.

my whole point is that blm isn't like the panthers, the ira, or the silver fascist people.  those organizations explicitly advocated violence.  one of them literally calls itself an army.  those are not comparable to a movement that does not condone or advocate violence.
I dunno, being told that I should be "fried like bacon" sounds like a fairly explicit call for violence against me. The recordings of Ferguson riots depict both advocating for violence and actual acts of violence. For a group that doesn't condone violence, there sure is a lot of violence going on within their activities.

So, to clarify: I am not suggesting that BLM invented a new crime. I am suggesting that BLM commits crimes in an organised and structured manner, and that this should receive appropriate recognition.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

Re: Chicago racists torture disabled man
« Reply #39 on: January 11, 2017, 03:56:06 AM »
bait and switch
dude, seriously, what are you talking about?  you said a thing.  i misunderstood it.  you pointed that out.  i agreed.

i also get why people who advocate nonviolence would be annoyed at being associated with people to do violence.

what's the master stroke here, exactly?

consistency args
i attribute systemic racial disparity to bad public policy, not political parties, affiliations, or activist groups.  property taxes, shit like that.  not the same thing.

you insist that i'm being inequitable in the application of my criticism, but you do not give me any specific examples of my failure.  my position is that hasty generalizations are always poor reasoning.  everyone should not do that.  i am wholly uninterested in whether or not there's a "precedent" for poor reasoning.

fwiw you probably can find at least one instance of a user making a hasty g and i failed to call them out on it.  i'm not a robot.  tell you what, tho.  you have my permission to, from now on, point out when someone of any political party is making a hasty g, and i will post something condemning it.  for real.

the law and various other lawyerings.
so that's not quite how us law works regarding criminal organizations, to my amateur understanding.  you can't be arrested for associations.  that's first amendment shit.  it's not illegal to be a member of the bloods or crips, for example, even though they are literally and explicitly criminal organizations.  you cannot make it illegal to be a member of blm.  that's why what you're saying is so confusing to me.

if some blm folks engage in a conspiracy to commit a crime (like a riot), then that is already illegal.  and should be prosecuted.

your viewpoint on their criminal nature is informed solely by selection bias, though, so it ultimately doesn't matter.  you can keep bringing up ferguson if you want.  that happened, was awful, and is atypical.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 03:59:03 AM by garygreen »
shitposting leftists are never alone