|
ToastyPotato posted:The best thing to do in that situation is to let it be known and move on. No one is going to make someone see the errors of their ways in a thread like this, on a site like this. Welcome to the end of the thought process. If you're going to debate or discuss the topic with him, calling him racist gets you nowhere. If you don't want to, ignore him and be done with it. There's a three page back and forth of this poo poo. It's bad and you (all) should feel bad.
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
Raerlynn posted:
New thread title please.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Yes the dogpiling of some guy on the Internet is sure to convince him to change his ways and get his heart to grow three sizes this day! If you really think you are going to show a racist on somethingawful.com the error of their ways then you are very, very naive. While dogpiling does derail the discussion a bit, it is better than pretending this is some silly therapy session where we have to entertain complete rear end backwards ideas from unrepentant bigots because that is "fair". And then we can have circular arguments with low effort trolling because we are obligated to meet every opinion as equally valid. That's dumb and more of a waste of time than just calling people out when they say something lovely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It doesn't matter if he's loving Hitler it doesn't make his argument wrong or right, this is what an ad-hom fallacy actually is, not the "wah you said something mean" that people normally try to call it out as. I'm going to put it out there that I think Hitler was wrong, regardless of the logical fallacies used to support the notion that Hitler is wrong. In the same way, I don't really loving care what fallacies are used to tear down racism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:If you really think you are going to show a racist on somethingawful.com the error of their ways then you are very, very naive. While dogpiling does derail the discussion a bit, it is better than pretending this is some silly therapy session where we have to entertain complete rear end backwards ideas from unrepentant bigots because that is "fair". And then we can have circular arguments with low effort trolling because we are obligated to meet every opinion as equally valid. That's dumb and more of a waste of time than just calling people out when they say something lovely. Guess I missed a /s there. No I don't believe you'll get him to change his mind. As you pointed out, this best course is to ignore him. Which people in this thread are failing to do miserably
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Wait, what is Genocidal Tendency supposed to have been arguing in the first place? I'm pretty sure that he never actually put forth a coherent argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It doesn't matter if he's loving Hitler it doesn't make his argument wrong or right, this is what an ad-hom fallacy actually is, not the "wah you said something mean" that people normally try to call it out as. AD hom doesn't apply to everything equally in real life. If Hitler were alive today, his opinions on anti-Semitism probably wouldn't be worth entertaining with any seriousness, unless he were admitting how loving wrong he was. Ad hom works best when people bring up unrelated personal attacks to invalidate an argument. Calling out someone's racism when they are debating racism isn't really an ad-hom attack, imo. Raerlynn posted:Guess I missed a /s there. No I don't believe you'll get him to change his mind. As you pointed out, this best course is to ignore him. Which people in this thread are failing to do miserably Calling people out when they say or do something bigoted can be productive when trying to engage in any kind of serious discussion on topics relating to those forms for bigotry. If the person in question has any self respect, they would either stand by what they said (the thing that people are calling them out for), or realize their error and respond accordingly. Their response can dictate how they are treated in such discussions going forward. ToastyPotato fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Guys, please stop being mean to the racist. I'm sure his attempt to argue about racism and policing is totally in good faith this time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Jesus Christ, both of you stop with the public jerk offs. Ok. But the issue I had initially was the response to the pull over was "driving while black". Which in my experience, is actually "changing lanes with out signaling". The reason wasn't she violated the traffic law and got pulled over, it was a black person got pulled over for being black. Which isn't right. But there we are. And after that the race card wouldn't be set aside. It kept coming back to her being black, and then they went post digging for racism. I have said before there are crooked cops. I said there were significant issues with regulations/training/selecting police in this country. And still believe that. I accept that sometimes cops straight up murder someone. We need to address a number of issues to correct the very real problem of excessive force or wrongful actions. I have posted this. But again, RACISM is whats trotted out. I would be interested in an actual discussion on this. But : ToastyPotato posted:Nobody cares about your opinions because you seem to be an unrepentant racist Which proves that D&D is incapable of actual Debate and Discussion. Thanks for actually replying with a genuine attempt to discuss this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
SedanChair is right though. There are studies in Europe about the lack of last ditch shootouts for even violent criminals and murderers due to the fact that in many cases, their lives are not ruined nor are they looking at excessive sentences or lovely prisons. It doesn't mean that it is RIGHT or encouraged to shoot at cops. But if we want to reduce violence towards police officers, giving people hope in their lives is definitely worth. If the idea of getting arrested literally means that your life is over, why do we expect something else than a fight or flight response? But what if being arrested means that your life can be repaired?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
What evidence would it take to convince you that there is a pro-police bias in the American media?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
I still stand by my "gently caress the [racist] police" posts from two weeks ago that were dragged up last page.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Ok. But the issue I had initially was the response to the pull over was "driving while black". Which in my experience, is actually "changing lanes with out signaling". Can you explain what you mean by your experience. Do you mean your personal experience? Can you give a specific example?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Ok. But the issue I had initially was the response to the pull over was "driving while black". Which in my experience, is actually "changing lanes with out signaling". If you really want an honest discussion, you should start by being honest about your feelings on race and racism, right here. You should address that post you made that people have quoted, and let people know exactly where you stand, because right now it seems like you are ok with being a bit racist, but simply want people to ignore that while you take part in a discussion involving racism. Own your opinions, state them clearly, and maybe, just maybe, people will actually engage with you. What you said elsewhere is out of the bag now. And it is going to be part of the conversation until you address it properly. Otherwise, stop whining.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Ok. But the issue I had initially was the response to the pull over was "driving while black". Which in my experience, is actually "changing lanes with out signaling". Do you see the issue with a statement like this? edit: And I ask that without the tiniest bit of snark. Senf fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Ok. But the issue I had initially was the response to the pull over was "driving while black". Which in my experience, is actually "changing lanes with out signaling". Personal anecdote - if this was actually enforced on my commute I would be a very happy man. But continue - Genocide Tendency posted:The reason wasn't she violated the traffic law and got pulled over, it was a black person got pulled over for being black. Which isn't right. But there we are. And after that the race card wouldn't be set aside. It kept coming back to her being black, and then they went post digging for racism. Factually true - she was cited for failure to use blinkers. Subtext though is that these are enforced at the discretion of the officer. And it seems coincidental that officers choose to exercise that discretion at a disproportionate rate against minorities. Again, Ferguson is an excellent example of this behavior. Genocide Tendency posted:Thanks for actually replying with a genuine attempt to discuss this. Anytime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
I can't possibly understand why we're not having a formal debate around this, it couldn't possibly be because of one party's complete inability to understand subtext and nuance re: what driving while black means, for example
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What evidence would it take to convince you that there is a pro-police bias in the American media? What evidence would it take for me to prove there is an equal voice of anti-police bias? Because this becomes "your source is invalid because it disagrees with my opinion". I'm currently watching MSNBC. Al Sharpton has a show in a couple hours, which is where I first heard about the dispute over Bland's death. And man was he outraged over it. With in two days it was all over the network, running with the narrative of how many times the cop did something wrong. Then you have this bullshit. Which is outright lies. And you could trot out Fox and all sorts of other sites that back cops explicitly. Some just as loving out there as Police State USA. Frankly the reality of cops is this. They are largely ignored until there is a brutality (whether real or believed) incident. Then you have sides taken and hyperbole thrown. With little in the way of actual valuable discussion on it. I don't believe there is a true anti-police bias as much as there is a significant vocal distrust when there is an incident, especially when the suspect is black and the officer is white.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Look as a white man I've never been pulled over for driving while black, why don't you all shut up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:What evidence would it take for me to prove there is an equal voice of anti-police bias? Infinite. Anti-police bias has nothing to do with this debate. Unless you're saying that the statistics are biased  Also don't forget Veskit posted:Can you explain what you mean by your experience. Do you mean your personal experience? Can you give a specific example?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I can't possibly understand why we're not having a formal debate around this, it couldn't possibly be because of one party's complete inability to understand subtext and nuance re: what driving while black means, for example Quotes like this don't help: Agrajag posted:Never trust a cop. At this point you're probably better off assuming everything a cop says in a report to be a lie until proven otherwise. In fact I would also say the same thing for prosecutors/DA's that work hand in hand with the cops to perpetuate this abuse. They enable cops to do this poo poo with impunity. As proven by the postings of ActusRhesus in this thread. For anyone who is interested there is an ask tell thread with a bunch of PDs and prosecutors. If anyone has sincere questions about the workings of the criminal justice system, there's decent information there. A lot of the vitriol and confusion in this thread comes from a lack of knowledge/understanding of the system. Though the big take home point of the thread seems to be "it varies widely from state to state" yay 10th amendment :despair:
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Senf posted:Do you see the issue with a statement like this? And really, honestly, the issue isn't that she was pulled over. Technically, what she did is against the law. Yes, minor infractions like that are overwhelmingly used as an excuse to pull someone over for a different reason, but let's set that aside for a moment. The big problem is that failure to signal a lane change should not merit being arrested, concussed, and thrown in jail for a few days (unless it turns out the car was stolen or there's a murder victim in the backseat or something). The situation never needed to be escalated, and the escalation on the part of the officer was dangerous, unprofessional, and worthy of scorn. There is no defending what he did. We should and we need to hold officers to the standards that we hold other professionals to every day. Right now, we don't even hold them to the standards of a retail worker, despite the fact that police have control over the life or death of other civilians. The reason this jumps to race is that the people who suffer the most severe consequences tend to be minorities. The aforementioned situation of being arrested, concussed, and thrown in jail over a minor traffic violation is unfathomable for a white person. We tend to figure that obviously some other mitigating factor had to be at play, especially if you're not poor enough to have had bad encounters with police. There was no mitigating factor in this situation though. The fault was entirely at the hands of the officer, and a woman is dead because of it. This is unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Quotes like this don't help: Yes, someone said that in the thread, not sure what that's supposed to be evidence of besides one person's opinion. It's hardly evidence of a lack of good faith debate, that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Yes, someone said that in the thread, not sure what that's supposed to be evidence of besides one person's opinion. It's hardly evidence of a lack of good faith debate, that's for sure. It is when 90% of the posts in the thread are in a similar vein, and when almost every iteration of this kind of thread has had people literally posting "Kill all police", wishing for police to die during traffic stops, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:It is when 90% of the posts in the thread are in a similar vein, and when almost every iteration of this kind of thread has had people literally posting "Kill all police", wishing for police to die during traffic stops, etc. Probably just a strong reaction due to all the unarmed people, disproportionately black people, literally actually physically dying from encounters with police officers. But, hey, let's be hyperbolic and say that literally 9/10 posters crave cop death.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Can you explain what you mean by your experience. Do you mean your personal experience? Can you give a specific example? I can give 4 examples. The 4 times and 3 tickets I got for changing lanes with out a signal. In 4 different states no less. Senf posted:Do you see the issue with a statement like this? Because there is no issue. Other than its deemed wrong because it weakens the group think outrage. Raerlynn posted:Personal anecdote - if this was actually enforced on my commute I would be a very happy man. But continue - Ok. You are dismissing this because why? This is my problem. Florida enacted a traffic law requiring you to signal when changing lanes in the 60s. They repealed it in, I believe the 80s but don't hold me to that (they did repeal it, just not sure when). Their reasoning was law enforcement said it was too difficult to enforce. They reenacted it in the early 00s. I know this because I got my licence in the mid 90s and it wasn't a law. So I learned to drive with out signaling for a lane change. This resulted in getting pulled over in 4 different states for not signaling a lane change. Its a traffic law. Pulling someone over for a traffic violation is pulling someone over for a traffic violation. They didn't let me go for being white. I got tickets in 3 of those pull overs because "you should have known our traffic laws". Did I like it? No. But they had every right to. Personal anecdote doesn't disqualify a point. Why people seem to believe this is baffling to me. Getting pulled over for not signaling when the traffic laws require you signal a lane change is not a "driving while black" offense. Its getting pulled over for not signaling when the traffic laws require you signal a lane change. Did I get pulled over for "driving while white"? Driving while a teenager? Driving while in military uniform? Driving while in my 20s? Driving while in my 30s? No. I didn't signal a lane change. Thats why I got pulled over. I get that there is an issue with profiling. I won't disagree with it. But its not an immediate race problem when someone gets pulled over. Sometimes, its because that person violated a traffic law. The actions that followed are debatable. But even then its not always race, sometimes, just sometimes... Its a cop who is an rear end in a top hat and would do that to anyone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Someone needs to crunch those numbers, how many statements have been made about wishing a cop would be killed v. statements made by people justifying a cop killing an unarmed person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:
racism actually is not popular. you are not a victim of echo chamber group think when you say racist things, that is mass criticism because your opinions are widely regarded as unacceptable. it's nobody's responsibility to coddle you if you can't mask your bigotry, literal rednecks can figure it out. really it comes across as that you just get off on being confrontational and persecuted, which is why nobody wants to argue with you in good faith
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:I can give 4 examples. Your logic is because you got 3 tickets after being pulled over 4 times people don't get pulled over for driving while black? Just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:If you really think you are going to show a racist on somethingawful.com the error of their ways then you are very, very naive. While dogpiling does derail the discussion a bit, it is better than pretending this is some silly therapy session where we have to entertain complete rear end backwards ideas from unrepentant bigots because that is "fair". And then we can have circular arguments with low effort trolling because we are obligated to meet every opinion as equally valid. That's dumb and more of a waste of time than just calling people out when they say something lovely. Quit circlejerking, this forum is only for accepting racists ideas and engaging them with the respect they deserve. Vahakyla posted:SedanChair is right though. There are studies in Europe about the lack of last ditch shootouts for even violent criminals and murderers due to the fact that in many cases, their lives are not ruined nor are they looking at excessive sentences or lovely prisons. This is America, not some socialist post-apocalyptic shithole like Norway or Sweden, here we're interested in Justice, not reform! ActusRhesus posted:For anyone who is interested there is an ask tell thread with a bunch of PDs and prosecutors. If anyone has sincere questions about the workings of the criminal justice system, there's decent information there. A lot of the vitriol and confusion in this thread comes from a lack of knowledge/understanding of the system. Are you saying that the outrage is because we're stupid and don't understand how the justice system works? All we see are the results, but if we knew how it worked we'd see that it's totally cool? Dirk the Average posted:And really, honestly, the issue isn't that she was pulled over. Technically, what she did is against the law. Yes, minor infractions like that are overwhelmingly used as an excuse to pull someone over for a different reason, but let's set that aside for a moment. Don't forget she was being charged with assault charges too, so it's more than just spending a weekend in jail and paying a fine, regardless of what she did she was going to be a felon. This is how our society creates criminals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:racism actually is not popular. you are not a victim of echo chamber group think when you say racist things, that is mass criticism because your opinions are widely regarded as unacceptable. it's nobody's responsibility to coddle you if you can't mask your bigotry, literal rednecks can figure it out. really it comes across as that you just get off on being confrontational and persecuted, which is why nobody wants to argue with you in good faith You keep using that word. After removing the rest of the post. You can not respond with anything but "racist". How many rows are on the school bus that drops you off at the adult day care?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Because there is no issue. Other than its deemed wrong because it weakens the group think outrage. I believe that there very much is an issue with such a viewpoint. Why? Because it explicitly brushes aside those that disagree with you. You dedicate several lines of text to addressing your side and when it comes to the other side, say only this: Genocide Tendency posted:The actions that followed are debatable. But even then its not always race, sometimes, just sometimes... Its a cop who is an rear end in a top hat and would do that to anyone. How heartily were you harassed during your four stops? Or were you, as you mentioned, simply cited and told to leave? Why did Sandra Bland die and you didn't? I think that's a fair question. Senf fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Aug 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Your logic is because you got 3 tickets after being pulled over 4 times people don't get pulled over for driving while black? Just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. My logic is someone who gets pulled over for failing to signal a lane change where signaling a lane change is a requirement is not "driving while black". Are you really not smart enough to follow this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Your logic is because you got 3 tickets after being pulled over 4 times people don't get pulled over for driving while black? Just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. Don't be so hard on him, he probably needs to wear a helmet when he goes outside.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:My logic is someone who gets pulled over for failing to signal a lane change where signaling a lane change is a requirement is not "driving while black". "Look guys, if blacks would stop breaking the law they wouldn't get pulled over" 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:You keep using that word. After removing the rest of the post. just saying, it's not like a liberal conspiracy at play when people criticise you for saying racist things. being racist is actually socially unacceptable irl
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Are you saying that the outrage is because we're stupid and don't understand how the justice system works? All we see are the results, but if we knew how it worked we'd see that it's totally cool? No. But you might be able to suggest reforms that don't require the suspension of the bill of rights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:My logic is someone who gets pulled over for failing to signal a lane change where signaling a lane change is a requirement is not "driving while black". do you think the police write "reason for stop: was black" on police reports or something "ma'am, the reason i stopped you today is that you are black. dark as hell. darker than molassess in a cave during a mississippi blizzard."
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:do you think the police write "reason for stop: was black" on police reports or something An unsignalled lane change would be a super good reason to pull someone over when you don't have other reasons, too. No one is going to doubt that any given car changed a lane without signalling, since just about everyone does it. I've always heard that if a cop wants to pull you over he'll just find a reason though. So maybe "while black" is a good reason too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
Senf posted:I believe that there very much is an issue with such a viewpoint. Why? Because it explicitly brushes aside those that disagree with you. During those 4 times? Not much beyond the rear end in a top hat who had a REAL BIG issue with me being in the military. But I don't expect better from South Carolina Highway Patrol. Now ask me about the time I had a gun shoved into the back of my head for cracking jokes with an EOD tech. Or the time I got a nightstick to the throat for telling a cop to stop picking on a kid for "waiting for his friends". Or the time I got cuffed and searched for making a right on red. Or the time that I got.. No wait. scratch that, I earned the rest. I'm not brushing aside those who disagree with me. Again. If someone, regardless of race, gets pulled over for violating a traffic law, its not automatically because of their race/age/gender. Its often because, get this, they violated a traffic law. But hey. Personal anecdotes don't count because cops pull over black people which is racism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 21:44
|
|