Should discussion about The Poem be ... censored?

[Luckmann]

Video wouldn't load for me so I can't hear the officer's actual words; if he was referring to the rioters as "animals" because they are black then yeah, that was most certainly racist on his part. However, if on the other hand he referred to the rioters as "animals" because they were looting and destroying and generally carrying on as such then it most likely wasn't racist at all, either way it's a bit of a moot point as I very much doubt anyone here knows the officer well enough to be able to peer into his heart and make a meaningful determination either way.

 

As someone who has at multiple times referred to people, both black and white, including officers, as "f***ing animals", I would consider a claim of bigotedness or racism on part of the officer to have about as much legitimacy as the claim of an inherently transphobic limerick.

 

The video didn't load for me either, I think he's just pulling this stuff from some link list to try to make points. Like argument-in-a-bottle or a how-to guide on facing online fascism.

 

 

Luckmann, you're barely coherent and you demonstrated no understanding of the subject.

I think I'll go do something more productive, like watching cat vids on youtube.

 

Awwwww, I'm sowwy I hurted your feeluhngs. Want a cookie and a tissue for your bruised feelings? Some grape soda and some cat vids will surely make you feel better. You know what they say, if you can't hack the logic, accuse them of you not understanding and run away citing productiveness.

 

 

The fact that you haven't even mastered basic English is really none of my concern.

 

Edited April 14, 2015 by Luckmann

[Serdan]

 

Awwwww, I'm sowwy I hurted your feeluhngs. Want a cookie and a tissue for your bruised feelings? Some grape soda and some cat vids will surely make you feel better. You know what they say, if you can't hack the logic, accuse them of you not understanding and run away citing productiveness.

 

 

The fact that you haven't even mastered basic English is really none of my concern.

 

It's okay, dearie. I already know that you're delusional, you don't have to prove it.

[Luckmann]

 

 

Awwwww, I'm sowwy I hurted your feeluhngs. Want a cookie and a tissue for your bruised feelings? Some grape soda and some cat vids will surely make you feel better. You know what they say, if you can't hack the logic, accuse them of you not understanding and run away citing productiveness.

 

 

The fact that you haven't even mastered basic English is really none of my concern.

 

It's okay, dearie. I already know that you're delusional, you don't have to prove it.

 

 

When all else fails; sling mud? All too predictable. You'd rather be petty than to face your own issues, like virtually all SJW:s.

[Serdan]

 

 

 

Awwwww, I'm sowwy I hurted your feeluhngs. Want a cookie and a tissue for your bruised feelings? Some grape soda and some cat vids will surely make you feel better. You know what they say, if you can't hack the logic, accuse them of you not understanding and run away citing productiveness.

 

 

The fact that you haven't even mastered basic English is really none of my concern.

 

It's okay, dearie. I already know that you're delusional, you don't have to prove it.

 

 

When all else fails; sling mud? All too predictable. You'd rather be petty than to face your own issues, like virtually all SJW:s.

 

Your complete lack of self-awareness is hilarious.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The dictionary defines racism as:

 

1:  a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

 

2:  racial prejudice or discrimination

 

Sauce: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

 

There is nothing in there about "power" being a requirement.

 

 

[BruceVC]

 

What the hells BruceVC, I've got the breath to waste at the moment. The reason that my quoting your post fits is it's a perfect example showing you making assumptions about a group of people; in this case the kinds of comments that you "are sure we will now hear". However, that wasn't the reason your reaction caught in my craw ... no I expect SJWs to come into these threads with at least as many assumptions and biases as they proclaim their dreaded foes to have ... the reason that your reaction struck a nerve is that it read to me as being self centered and focused on your narrative with Mungri being little more then a springboard for your own self importance.  

 

 

I really thought you were going to give me an irrefutable  example of how "I make assumptions about  groups of people ", in fact I have asked for evidence of that several times and I haven't one valid response. This is no different 

 

I have explained several times now that what I meant is I don't make assumptions like " all Russians are homophobic " or " all Americans are warmongers " 

 

In your apparently " glaring " example of me doing this you are saying this is not true because I used the words " am sure we will now hear " but I also said the words " most straight people " ...the operative word being  "most "..that is not the same thing as me saying " all straight people " 

 

And if I say I think person x is a bigot that is not the same thing as me saying " all people who said this are bigots "

 

The funny thing is I have no issue with you actually proving me wrong, so I encourage you to go back and read all my posts and give me a real example of where I said " all people are  xxx or all people are yyy" 

 

So I still have no idea why you  say something got stuck in your throat because I see no contradiction in my posts?

[Psychevore]

First, racism. Saying that white people can't be subjected to racism or will casually dismiss it is racism in itself. In fact, no other countries in the world save white ones obsess nearly as much over racism and racial tolerance.

*sigh*

 

Because it doesn't matter. If some black people have strong racial hatred towards white people, it won't hurt these white people in the rest of their lives.

 

They won't have their job applications thrown in the bin because their last name sounds foreign. They won't be denied a job they're obviously qualified for because they have the wrong skin colour in the interview. They won't be harrased by police.

 

The white people can brush off the racism and just go back to their jobs with their white bosses, for black people and other people of different descent this is not the case.

 

Sure, white people can run into the occasional racist ****, but it will not affect their lives on daily basis.

 

You are trying to equate person to person racism to grand, cultural, institutionalized racism. You, a white person, who's enjoyed every priviledge there is. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

And that last point... lol are you serious? Of course other countries don't care as much, they didn't sail across the world and subjugated the native populace, or exterminated them outright. Racism is our (white people's) burden, not theirs. They've only just recently escaped from the shackles of racism. That you even dare and equate this to white countries is absolutely absurd.

 

Second, strawman. Nobody is ingoring that somebody can be transgendered (regardless as to whether that's an arguable point or not) by dismissing the twitter lunatic's claim of intolerance. Furthermore, suggesting that you cannot believe that people can be transgendered and also believe that the limerick is not offensive is a false dichotomy and patently false; there are transgendered persons that agree that the perpetually offended are being ridiculous.

No one? How about you read this damn thread.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Psychevore

[Serdan]

The dictionary defines racism as:

 

1:  a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

 

2:  racial prejudice or discrimination

 

Sauce: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

 

There is nothing in there about "power" being a requirement.

 

 

Ohhhh... One of those "only the dictionary matters" people. How adorable.

I think doctors and various other specialists will be disappointed to know that all that useful jargon they've created is actually meaningless babble.

People redefine words all the time. The inability of some people to accept this, but only when it's something they disagree with, is very amusing.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

The dictionary defines racism as:

 

 

1:  a belief that ]race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

 

 

2:  racial ]prejudice or discrimination

 

Sauce: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

 

There is nothing in there about "power" being a requirement.

 

 

 

Ohhhh... One of those "only the dictionary matters" people. How adorable.

I think doctors and various other specialists will be disappointed to know that all that useful jargon they've created is actually meaningless babble.

People redefine words all the time. The inability of some people to accept this, but only when it's something they disagree with, is very amusing.

So you don't actually have an argument. Can't say I'm surprised.

[MLMII]

 

 

What the hells BruceVC, I've got the breath to waste at the moment. The reason that my quoting your post fits is it's a perfect example showing you making assumptions about a group of people; in this case the kinds of comments that you "are sure we will now hear". However, that wasn't the reason your reaction caught in my craw ... no I expect SJWs to come into these threads with at least as many assumptions and biases as they proclaim their dreaded foes to have ... the reason that your reaction struck a nerve is that it read to me as being self centered and focused on your narrative with Mungri being little more then a springboard for your own self importance.  

 

 

I really thought you were going to give me an irrefutable  example of how "I make assumptions about  groups of people ", in fact I have asked for evidence of that several times and I haven't one valid response. This is no different 

 

I have explained several times now that what I meant is I don't make assumptions like " all Russians are homophobic " or " all Americans are warmongers " 

 

In your apparently " glaring " example of me doing this you are saying this is not true because I used the words " am sure we will now hear " but I also said the words " most straight people " ...the operative word being  "most "..that is not the same thing as me saying " all straight people " 

 

And if I say I think person x is a bigot that is not the same thing as me saying " all people who said this are bigots "

 

The funny thing is I have no issue with you actually proving me wrong, so I encourage you to go back and read all my posts and give me a real example of where I said " all people are  xxx or all people are yyy" 

 

So I still have no idea why you  say something got stuck in your throat because I see no contradiction in my posts?

 

 

 

Ooo ... kay, I'm not quite sure whether to simply shake my head at this point or if I would be better served by slowly backing away with no sudden movements. ... I mean seriously, I literally spelled the reason your reaction bothered me for everyone to see and you come back with "Please explain why you are bothered by my post."

 

 

As for making assumptions and since this thread is starting to drift away from baselessly people of being homophobic to racism I'll ask a simple question; since it's apparently fine to make assumptions provided that we preface them with the disclaimer of "I only meant most and not all." Does that make the statement; "You must be one of the good ones." any less offensive to my Mick ancestors when they were being discrimated against because of their country of origin and religion? What about the other minority groups who had that statement thrown into their faces, perhaps most notably and recently against black people.

 

 

---- Oh, and since no-one offered to take me up on my joke in the other thread I'll provide the punchline at this time ...  "a sixpack and a potato".

[Serdan]

 

 

The dictionary defines racism as:

 

 

1:  a belief that ]race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

 

 

2:  racial ]prejudice or discrimination

 

Sauce: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

 

There is nothing in there about "power" being a requirement.

 

 

Ohhhh... One of those "only the dictionary matters" people. How adorable.

I think doctors and various other specialists will be disappointed to know that all that useful jargon they've created is actually meaningless babble.

People redefine words all the time. The inability of some people to accept this, but only when it's something they disagree with, is very amusing.

So you don't actually have an argument. Can't say I'm surprised.

 

Cute.

Social justice advocates often use definitions of racism that include power in some fashion.

What is there to argue?

[Valmy]

 

 

And that last point... lol are you serious? Of course other countries don't care as much, they didn't sail across the world and subjugated the native populace, or exterminated them outright. Racism is our (white people's) burden, not theirs. They've only just recently escaped from the shackles of racism. That you even dare and equate this to white countries is absolutely absurd.

 

 

Is it more noble to subjugate or exterminate your neighbors than sailing someplace to do it? Because that is an ongoing and permanent fixture of human existance. I have to question your assertion that we have recently escaped the shackles of this sort of thing. I also question the idea this is uniquely something white people have done. There is nothing special about us.

 

Again unless there is something distinctly important about sailing to do it instead of dominating the local neighborhood.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Valmy

[Psychevore]

Dictionary definitons don't matter, only in Scrabble.

 

Besides, dictionaries are made by academic white people.

[Psychevore]

Is it more noble to subjugate or exterminate your neighbors than sailing someplace to do it? Because that is an ongoing and permanent fixture of human existance. I have to question your assertion that we have recently escaped the shackles of this sort of thing. I also question the idea this is uniquely something white people have done. There is nothing special about us.

 

Again unless there is something distinctly important about sailing to do it instead of dominating the local neighborhood.

Again *sigh*

 

Of course other people have done so, but no other people have done so with such a lasting, global impact as white people.

 

Slightly off: it was a coin toss pretty much whether it were gonna be white people, or Asians. If one Chinese emperor, of which the name eludes me now, had not decided that ocean going ships should be burned and never built again, we'd be having this conversation in some form of Chinese, and not in English.

[Valmy]

 

Again *sigh*

 

Of course other people have done so, but no other people have done so with such a lasting, global impact as white people.

 

Slightly off: it was a coin toss pretty much whether it were gonna be white people, or Asians. If one Chinese emperor, of which the name eludes me now, had not decided that ocean going ships should be burned and never built again, we'd be having this conversation in some form of Chinese, and not in English.

 

 

We will see how lasting it is. It just ended in living memory. Culture is shifting rapidly and in unpredictable ways thanks to all this globalization and the digital age. But I guess in some ways that is all the product of it. I just hope that whatever does develop as a result of all this is not too horrible. It seems like a toss up now.

 

I am not sure the Chinese had the motivation to do it even though they could have. The driving force for the Spanish and Portuguese was to defeat the Morrocans (which ironically they never really got around to doing, well the Portuguese tried but it did not end well). Then once they did it the other Euros had to do it to keep up. The national rivalries was the driving force, the Chinese had the means but not the sense of existential threat.

 

But if they had we would not be having this conversation period because the world would be incalculably different hehe. 

 

Edit: Man cropping quotes on this forum is a pain.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Valmy

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

The dictionary defines racism as:

 

1:  a belief that ]race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

 

2:  racial ]prejudice or discrimination

 

Sauce: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

 

There is nothing in there about "power" being a requirement.

 

 

 

Ohhhh... One of those "only the dictionary matters" people. How adorable.

I think doctors and various other specialists will be disappointed to know that all that useful jargon they've created is actually meaningless babble.

People redefine words all the time. The inability of some people to accept this, but only when it's something they disagree with, is very amusing.

So you don't actually have an argument. Can't say I'm surprised.

Cute.

Social justice advocates often use definitions of racism that include power in some fashion.

What is there to argue?

Then they're using "racism" incorrectly in the same manner teabagers incorrectly use "socialism" to describe government welfare programs.

 

If you're going to use a word bother to use it correctly.

[PrimeJunta]

Sociological definition of racism.

[Mungri]

+1 for dictionary definitions suck. That's one one of the main reasons why we have those idiots that run around crying 'but evolution is only a theory', because dictionaries give the definition of hypothesis to theory instead.

 

Then again, resorting to anything a dictionary defines for any kind of debate relating to science is a moronic thing that only dumb people do anyway. A person requires zero knowledge to look something up in a dictionary and quote whatever it says, even a 5 year old can do that.

[Valmy]

Sociological definition of racism.

 

Yeah these kinds of things just make you feel hopeless because they indicate these sorts of things are so ingrained in a society's DNA and everybody is caught up in it. Looking at it you can also see this probably exists, in different forms (probably more ethnic in places than racial and of course that gender thing), in basically every society in the world. Definitely a problem in an increasingly globalized world.

 

They make it seem almost impossible to overcome we just have to do the best we can.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Valmy

[Amentep]

Sure, white people can run into the occasional racist ****, but it will not affect their lives on daily basis.

So there's "good racism" and "bad racism"? Its only bad if it "affects their lives on a daily basis"? But otherwise racism is okay?

 

People redefine words all the time.

"People" don't redefine words. Use by society redefines words. A person can't redefine a word, for example, to ensure that they win a debate because their opponent is no longer arguing with a shared context.

[Psychevore]

Edit: Man cropping quotes on this forum is a pain.

Press the top left button in the posting window. This removes the layout and you get something more akin to the old school BB code way of making a layout.

 

 

Sure, white people can run into the occasional racist ****, but it will not affect their lives on daily basis.

So there's "good racism" and "bad racism"? Its only bad if it "affects their lives on a daily basis"? But otherwise racism is okay?

 

I never said any of that. Try again.

[MLMII]

RE: Cropping Quotes ...

 

 

Agreed, especially when trying to reply to the "staircase to hell" exchanges and the forum keeps spitting errors back at you. ... As an aside, does anyone else have almost every "reply" start with a random format preselected?

 

 

 

Sociological definition of racism.

 

 

Interesting read, although I tend to question it's own bias considering that virtually all, if not every example given seemed aimed at portraying white people as guilty of some form of racism. ... Still, even so I don't really see why I should accept your "dictionary definition" over the one that KaineParker offered. Hells, I think I'd argue that if someone had bothered to prune the one you offered of it's rather obnoxious racial overtones the two don't really seem that much at odds, if at all.

 

 

+1 for dictionary definitions suck. That's one one of the main reasons why we have those idiots that run around crying 'but evolution is only a theory', because dictionaries give the definition of hypothesis to theory instead.

Then again, resorting to anything a dictionary defines for any kind of debate relating to science is a moronic thing that only dumb people do anyway. A person requires zero knowledge to look something up in a dictionary and quote whatever it says, even a 5 year old can do that.

 

Although I did give this a "like" because I tend to agree with the sentiment in general; at the same time words do have meanings and in this very thread we've been told things like ... "You can't be a bigot if you defend gay rights.", which is something that I do take umbrage towards in addition to simply being flat out silly and wrong.

[Valmy]

Press the top left button in the posting window. This removes the layout and you get something more akin to the old school BB code way of making a layout.

Sweet! Thanks a lot.

[Valmy]

Interesting read, although I tend to question it's own bias considering that virtually all, if not every example given seemed aimed at portraying white people as guilty of some form of racism. ...

Yeah, it was annoying to see only one example. I guess they wanted to keep it American. But you could easily put that in other contexts and see how it transfers.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Valmy

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

What the hells BruceVC, I've got the breath to waste at the moment. The reason that my quoting your post fits is it's a perfect example showing you making assumptions about a group of people; in this case the kinds of comments that you "are sure we will now hear". However, that wasn't the reason your reaction caught in my craw ... no I expect SJWs to come into these threads with at least as many assumptions and biases as they proclaim their dreaded foes to have ... the reason that your reaction struck a nerve is that it read to me as being self centered and focused on your narrative with Mungri being little more then a springboard for your own self importance.  

 

 

I really thought you were going to give me an irrefutable  example of how "I make assumptions about  groups of people ", in fact I have asked for evidence of that several times and I haven't one valid response. This is no different 

 

I have explained several times now that what I meant is I don't make assumptions like " all Russians are homophobic " or " all Americans are warmongers " 

 

In your apparently " glaring " example of me doing this you are saying this is not true because I used the words " am sure we will now hear " but I also said the words " most straight people " ...the operative word being  "most "..that is not the same thing as me saying " all straight people " 

 

And if I say I think person x is a bigot that is not the same thing as me saying " all people who said this are bigots "

 

The funny thing is I have no issue with you actually proving me wrong, so I encourage you to go back and read all my posts and give me a real example of where I said " all people are  xxx or all people are yyy" 

 

So I still have no idea why you  say something got stuck in your throat because I see no contradiction in my posts?

 

 

 

Ooo ... kay, I'm not quite sure whether to simply shake my head at this point or if I would be better served by slowly backing away with no sudden movements. ... I mean seriously, I literally spelled the reason your reaction bothered me for everyone to see and you come back with "Please explain why you are bothered by my post."

 

 

As for making assumptions and since this thread is starting to drift away from baselessly people of being homophobic to racism I'll ask a simple question; since it's apparently fine to make assumptions provided that we preface them with the disclaimer of "I only meant most and not all." Does that make the statement; "You must be one of the good ones." any less offensive to my Mick ancestors when they were being discrimated against because of their country of origin and religion? What about the other minority groups who had that statement thrown into their faces, perhaps most notably and recently against black people.

 

 

---- Oh, and since no-one offered to take me up on my joke in the other thread I'll provide the punchline at this time ...  "a sixpack and a potato".

 

 

I am not sure you and I are even on the same page anymore with this debate

 

 

I am challenging the notion that you said " I make assumptions about groups of people " 

 

If you arent saying that now then I'm not sure what we are debating. If you are saying you still found my comment to be offensive thats fine, I am not going to presume to tell you how you should interpret my posts. Sorry if you assumed I was necessarily talking about you but I have idea how your parents treated you so I can't say if you were included in the point earlier I made where I basically said " most straight people haven't had there parents tell them they wish they had been aborted " ...if your parents did say that to you then you have my sincere condolences because as I said to Mungri that's cruel and unfair 

 

If that's not what you talking about then I still don't understand exactly what I said that caused something to get stuck in your throat because I am missing how what I said to Mungri is relevant to my self-importance ....that the bit I really don't get 

 

And yes you are correct,  to say to some ethnic group " you must be one of the good ones " is offensive and patronizing but once again that's not what I said or meant. And I don't know how many times I can keep explaining this  

Edited April 14, 2015 by BruceVC