7 Habits of Highly Affected Racialists

[ksen]

Max, you say this as if this is the first-ever thread about systemic, institutionalized racism. You say this as if there was not a history of discussion going back almost 10 years with you and me reading and participating in the same threads (15 years with me and others). You say this as if me "walking away" is my first response ever on the topic.

Each of you (except perhaps the one who just joined in Dec 2014). We have YEARS of examples. YEARS of conversations about current events, news, history. A DECADE of discussion.


I'm not walking away with a refusal give you even one example and you know it. I am looking at your post and saying, "oh, for the love of reason, not again." You are claiming that I've never written any example ever?

You're not fooling anyone except perhaps yourself.

In other words, the more strident your unsupported claims are, the more you expect others to be convinced that they are supported?

it's the maxparrish way

 

[maxparrish]

So, I've got a question.
Just hypothetically,
if there were "racialists," what kind of behaviors would they exhibit, do you think?
Would they do any thing like any of these?


1. Rejecting and Mocking Accepted Sociological Terminology.
2. Accuse Minorities of Racism.
3. Racism Denial.
4. Appeal to (pseudo)Science.
5. Hyperfocus on Minutiae.
6. The “Not All X” Defense.
7. Redefining Racism.

And if not, how do you think a "racialist" or racist would behave when asked about racist situations? Would they instantly see and agree with the racism present in the situation? Or would a racialist behave differently from non racialist? Can we tell anything from the billboards that they put up?

I guess the important antecedent question is, do racists or racialists actually exist?
Or are those billboard putter-uppers just normal tolerant people?

So I also have a few questions needing answered before your question can be precisely answered.

How do you define racism? The traditional dictionary definition?
How do you define racialists, and how does it differ from racists?
How do you define racism denial?
How do you define (pseudo) Science?

 

[dismal]

So, I've got a question.
Just hypothetically,
if there were "racialists," what kind of behaviors would they exhibit, do you think?
Would they do any thing like any of these?


1. Rejecting and Mocking Accepted Sociological Terminology.
2. Accuse Minorities of Racism.
3. Racism Denial.
4. Appeal to (pseudo)Science.
5. Hyperfocus on Minutiae.
6. The “Not All X” Defense.
7. Redefining Racism.

And if not, how do you think a "racialist" or racist would behave when asked about racist situations? Would they instantly see and agree with the racism present in the situation? Or would a racialist behave differently from non racialist? Can we tell anything from the billboards that they put up?

I guess the important antecedent question is, do racists or racialists actually exist?
Or are those billboard putter-uppers just normal tolerant people?

So I also have a few questions needing answered before your question can be precisely answered.

How do you define racism? The traditional dictionary definition?
How do you define racialists, and how does it differ from racists?
How do you define racism denial?
How do you define (pseudo) Science?

ZOMFg the Minutiae!!!1!211!

 

[maxparrish]

So I also have a few questions needing answered before your question can be precisely answered.

How do you define racism? The traditional dictionary definition?
How do you define racialists, and how does it differ from racists?
How do you define racism denial?
How do you define (pseudo) Science?

ZOMFg the Minutiae!!!1!211!

I know, I really feel bad about it! Asking for clarity is likely to be racialist/racist as well.

 

[Davka]

Nope, you don't get a pass, dismal. This thread itself is all the example I need. You lose.

Damn, I knew I was losing when I completely abandoned supporting my arguments with examples and started flinging feces at people instead.

Oh wait, that wasn't me.

The thread so far:

Davka: Sometimes some people use some really dishonest arguments to defend racism.

Dismal & peanut gallery: They do not! How dare you say that! Quit calling me names! Prove it!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Davka: Sometimes some people use some really dishonest arguments to defend racism.

Y'know, if you had put it like that to begin with, I don't think you'd get half as many objections. Maybe next time you can start with this and try for an actual discussion instead of a bait and troll party.

 

[fromderinside]

Although the OP fails to present a single valid idea, it is useful in presenting a nice list of the various ways that race baiters and members of the "It's always racism" faith, try to dismiss the reasonable objections to those seeking to gain political leverage by using every instance in which a minority suffers a negative outcome as evidence for their narrative, no matter how much unreason is required to force-fit those instances into that narrative.




The above is rubbish pseudo-science that cherry picks a definition specific to areas of social science focused upon societal level group interactions and ignores the field of psychology where racism is typically defined as psychological processes that any and all persons are capable of no matter their skin color or political power. Amusingly, the race baiters seek to define racism, a clearly undesirable quality, in a manner that makes it something that only certain racial groups can possess, and is thus itself a racist definition of racism.

2. Accuse Minorities of Racism. This is a classic “tu quoque” argument, known on playgrounds across the nation as “well, you do it too!,” sometimes known as the :he hit me back first!” defense. This ignores the fact that racism cannot be practiced by powerless minorities against powerful minorities.¹

This suffers from the same cherry-picked and non-psychological definition of racism as #1. In addition, it willfully distorts the actual context and motives within which racism by members of minority groups is referred to, mischaracterizing them as a mere attempt to excuse majority racism. To the contrary, such observations are generally made to point to the underlying psychological nature of racism and its roots within individual psychology. In addition, racism discussions nearly always are used to cast ethical judgment upon persons. Whether one happens to be a member of conceptual abstraction such as a racial group is outside of any actual thoughts or actions outside the persons control. Thus, power differentials related to those racial categories have zero bearing on any ethical issue. The ethics lies within the thoughts, words, and deeds of individuals over which they have some control. Thus, the ethics related to racism lie entirely within the psychological aspects of racism that the evidence from psychological science shows can and does occur within people within all abstract categories. Thus, any sensible or practical discussion of racism must deeply consider racism in terms of the psychological processes themselves and not solely in terms of group level power differentials. Failing to recognize the actual psychological and individual-level roots of all social phenomena is pervasive problem among naive and sadly too many supposedly "expert" sociological theorists. This ignorance of psychology is the cause of inane notions, such as that racism only exists and/or is only a problem in terms of group level power differentials

3. Racism Denial. Highly Affected Racialists assert often, loudly, and confidently that racism is no longer a problem, and therefore cannot be at the root of any social ills in America. Whenever anything newsworthy occurs which appears to be steeped in racism, characterize it as an isolated incident. Individual racists may be admitted to exist, but the institution of racism must be assumed to have vanished completely at some vague, indeterminate time between the assassination of MLK Jr. and the election of President Obama.

This is just a strawman perversion, and not a view remotely held by 99.9% of the people the OP is trying to defame. Their actual view is merely that not every single instance of any minority person having a negative outcome is due primarily to racism by the people with the most direct impact on that outcome. They need to point this obvious fact out, because race-baiters leap to a conclusion of such racism in specific instances without a shred of evidence or even in the face of strong evidence of other causal factors. This leap of faith only can be a bridge of reason if one starts with the premise that all negative outcome to all racial minorities are due to racism. Racism is not denied . What is denied is that racism is always the only plausible explanation for every negative outcome for minorities. Sadly, race baiters don't understand the difference between these arguments that are

4. Appeal to (pseudo)Science. The attempt to “prove” scientifically and/or logically that minority races are inherently inferior goes back as far as racism itself. Despite the fact that every single scientific justification for racism has been debunked numerous times, Highly Affected Racialists continue to return to this well, press-ganging genetics, statistics, and anthropology (among others) into the service of their bankrupt worldview.

Another strawman that applies to almost no one the OP is trying to defame. Of the thousands of posts challenging the "it's always racism" religion on these boards, somewhere between 0% to 1% say anything that implies that "minority races are inherently inferior". Such a misrepresentation is rooted in the demonstrated ignorance of the difference between an assertion of empirical fact and a proposed causal claim to explain those facts. What is actually asserted is typically empirically verified differences between specific sub-populations within larger racial groups (such as blacks and whites within the US), such as rates of criminal behavior or difference in general intellectual aptitudes, supported by science that is far more valid and rigorous the softest of the mush sort of post-modern politicized racial sociology that race-baiters put their faith in. Those differences in no way imply inherent or genetic differences and typically not differences at the level of racial groups but rather between sub-set of racial groups within particular contexts. The differences fully allow for the influence of contextual, historical, and cultural factors, but since those differences have causal impacts themselves on other outcome disparities, they often easily explain other outcome differences with greater scientific validity and support than presumption of racism by whites directly involved in that particular situation (e.g., cops, admissions boards, etc..). Since race baiters loathe the possibility that anything but the direct impact of racism could be responsible for any disparities, they irrationally deny factual empirical differences likely to produce disparities and misrepresent them as implying inherent genetic deficiencies in an effort to make emotional/moral appeals to reject these empirical realities.

5. Hyperfocus on Minutiae actual facts, evidence, logic, and reason. Whenever a newsworthy race-related atrocity hits the media, Highly Affected Racialists Critics of race baiters spring into action to deflect direct the conversation away from the dangerous ground of mindless emotional reactionary ideologies about societal wrongs, and onto the irrelevant “facts of the case.” This allows them to ignore attend to objective causes of the incidents rather than just the way that these incidents fit into the larger context ideological narrative of institutionalized racism, thus avoiding any allowing for potential learning opportunities. Instead of misrepresenting the actual incidents in order to fit that narrative talking about how White America interacts with the Darker Nation , honest and rational people can argue for hours, even days, about attend to the facts of the incident, such as whether the policeman in question has a history of racism; whether the dead or injured black male was acting in a threatening manner; whether the DNA in the lab fits the witness reports, and on and on. Having zero regard for facts and reasoned thought, race baiters ridicule focus on actual facts as "Hyperfocus on Minutiae"

#5 was close to being true and revealing the ideological objectives that create such a disdain for actual facts among race baiters. I just edited it a bit to make it accurate.

6. The “Not All X” Defense. This is another tactic for deflecting the conversation away from the very real problem of racism in America. Any time that widespread racism is brought up, the Highly Affected Racialist can be heard to say “that’s not fair, not all white people are racist,” or “not all police are racist,” or some similar sentiment. This is a strawman argument, since nobody is actually arguing that all of any group are racist. This technique can be found in other arguments by bigots, in forms such as “not all men are rapists.” “not all rich business owners are greedy assholes,” “not all conservatives are misogynists,” and so on.

Critics of Race Baiters are sadly sometimes forces to point out that not all X are racists, due to their inherent assumption underlying all race baiter arguments that all X are racists. Given the typical total lack of evidence that the people involved in an incident are racist and the typical evidence favoring other explanations, the race baiters insistence of racism as the explanation is highly irrational, unless they presume a priori that all X are racist and thus there is no need to have any evidence about that specific person. Explicitly pointng out the wrongness of such an assumption is valid method of exposing the irrationality of the race baiters arguments and conclusions.

7. Redefining Racism. This is an ironic habit, and one which many Highly Affected Racialists no doubt find hilarious. At the same time that the accepted sociological definition of racism is tossed aside as “too narrow” or simply “ludicrous,” Highly Affected racialists will tell you that, since they never ever use the “n-word,” and they don’t “hate” minorities, therefore they cannot be racists. Never mind that they regularly utilize every single one of these 7 habits; never mind that they ‘wouldn’t want their sister to marry one,” they don’t hate, tell racist jokes, or use slurs. All they want is to be left alone.

​

Like #1 and #2, this one is rooted in false claims about "the definition" of racism. In addition, it is another strawman inventing things that critics of race baiters "will tell you" and inventing feelings they have about their sister's mates.​

So while I tend to agree that Davka is reference light with his OP (see above) so is ronburgundy.

Since ronburgundy failed to treat davka's footnote I thought that item would be a good place to demonstrate how I approach criticism.

1. The sociological definition of racism can be seen most clearly by examining the root of American racism during the days of slavery. Racism involves the following: hatred of or disdain for a minority group; feelings of superiority over a minority group; active participation in a system which harms and diminishes a minority group. While there were no doubt numerous slaves who hated all white people, as well as many who felt themselves superior to white people, these attitudes did not affect the well-being of white people one bit. Slaves could hate all they wanted, but their hatred was not the problem. In fact, their hatred was a direct result of the problem, which was the racism of the white people who made the institution of slavery possible – and later the institutions of sharecropping, Jim Crow, Segregation, and lynching. The hatred of the oppressed for the oppressor does not equal racism. It may well be characterized as racial bigotry, but it is not racism.

Davka's first claim, apparently drawn from his memory of the history of american slavery, IMHO states conclusions without supporting data.

Taking each in order I've found from institution of  [B]slavery[/B],  [B]sharecropping[/B],  [B]Jim Crow[/B],  ][B]Racial segregation in the United States[/B] , and  lynching. Davka concludes there is hatred or disdain for a minority group, feelings of superiority over a minority group, and active participation in a system which harms and diminishes a minority group. Reasonable people can agree, I guess, that persons who invented such as slavery do not think those who they enslave are entitled in their society to freedom, may not believe those they enslave are equal to those in the ruling class, may believe their children shouldn't be taught with those in the slavery class and may even not be entitled to legal rights set for the ruling class.

Where is the hatred, disdain of the minority group. All I see is withholding of entitlements provided for the ruling class to the slavery class. My reading of the Jim Crow article found

With white supremacy challenged throughout the South, many whites sought to protect their former status by threatening African Americans who exercised their new rights.

and

One rationale for the systematic exclusion of black Americans from southern public society was that it was for their own protection. An early 20th-century scholar suggested that having allowed blacks in white schools would mean "constantly subjecting them to adverse feeling and opinion", which might lead to "a morbid race consciousness".^[21] This perspective took anti-black sentiment for granted, because bigotry was widespread in the South after slavery became a racial caste

Those statements seem a weak platform upon which to park hatred and disdain.​

 

[Rhea]

I do agree that many of the items listed in the OP are exactly what I would expect an actual racist to say or do. I would be careful though to not brand people as racists just because they doand say these things though, because there is often a call for a good reason to do and say such things. The racist will make blanket statements, ask no honest questions, not engage in conversation, and just speak from a faith-like position of how their race is superior and how "those [others]" are all like this or that and have this or that failing. Racism is inherently irrational. If they actually have data to back up such a claim, and rational argument, then really it stops being racism. For example, it isn't racist to say that black people are more vulnerable to particular diseases, and it isn't sexist to say that men are on average physically stronger than women.

Thanks. I agree that doing them doesn't peg one as a racist automatically. And I also agree that I do see them done by people who seem to not acknowledge that racism exists in cases where I seem to see something that looks pretty clearly like a decision based only on race. So not a diagnosable situation but definitely signs to dig deeper in a conversation. And perhaps, useful as flags to abandon a conversation completely (and possibly run like hell) if they start ticking off all of them!

 

[Rhea]

So, I've got a question.
Just hypothetically,
if there were "racialists," what kind of behaviors would they exhibit, do you think?
Would they do any thing like any of these?


1. Rejecting and Mocking Accepted Sociological Terminology.
2. Accuse Minorities of Racism.
3. Racism Denial.
4. Appeal to (pseudo)Science.
5. Hyperfocus on Minutiae.
6. The “Not All X” Defense.
7. Redefining Racism.

And if not, how do you think a "racialist" or racist would behave when asked about racist situations? Would they instantly see and agree with the racism present in the situation? Or would a racialist behave differently from non racialist? Can we tell anything from the billboards that they put up?

I guess the important antecedent question is, do racists or racialists actually exist?
Or are those billboard putter-uppers just normal tolerant people?

So I also have a few questions needing answered before your question can be precisely answered.

How do you define racism? The traditional dictionary definition?
How do you define racialists, and how does it differ from racists?
How do you define racism denial?
How do you define (pseudo) Science?

It's okay with me if you define it for your answer. Then you'll be sure to have it right.

 

[dismal]

Damn, I knew I was losing when I completely abandoned supporting my arguments with examples and started flinging feces at people instead.

Oh wait, that wasn't me.

The thread so far:

Davka: Sometimes some people use some really dishonest arguments to defend racism.

Dismal & peanut gallery: They do not! How dare you say that! Quit calling me names! Prove it!

More like this:

Davka: look at these awesome things I have made up
Others: those things are not real you made them up
Davka: you are all racialists
Others: if they are real please provide some examples
Davka: I already did
Others: You did? Where?
Davka: *flings feces*
Others: hey look at Davka making an ass of himself throwing feces
Davka: you're the ass *throws more feces*

 

[maxparrish]

So I also have a few questions needing answered before your question can be precisely answered.

How do you define racism? The traditional dictionary definition?
How do you define racialists, and how does it differ from racists?
How do you define racism denial?
How do you define (pseudo) Science?

It's okay with me if you define it for your answer. Then you'll be sure to have it right.

I define racism on an individual level - a moral belief that some races (or ethnic groups) are, because of their genes, morally superior and/or inferior to other races. Unwarranted, unfair, and unreasonable actions taken to harm other individuals based on those beliefs are racist actions.

I do not define racism in one of the broader quasi-Marxist sociological context, one as a phenomenon that exists without conscious belief in either an individual or institution. Racism is in the hearts of individuals, it is not a “structural” or “institutional” flaw of "the system".

Finally, I differentiate between racism, bigotry, and simple prejudice. Bigotry is little more than a gut feeling, a dislike or hostility to certain "kinds" of persons. Simple prejudice is more akin to the common actions of many whites in the 1950s, people who upheld mundane customs because they did not wish to be seen as socially "indecent" (e.g. a white boy inviting his black playmate to supper with the white boy's family).

I have no definition for racialism. It used to be identical to the term "racism", but some use it in other manners. For the sake of discussion, I will assume it means racism.

I have no idea what "racism denial" means. It may refer to an individuals denial of there own racists beliefs, denial of others individual racism or denial of racism as a pervasive and unconscious social structure.

I would define "pseudo" Science as any racial claims that it is a part of science but which has not been represented in the academic or expert literature.

Is that sufficient for discussion, or do you have objections?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Somehow the words..."I can't breathe" seem to resonate in my ears... You know you can say that about eleven times before you run out of air? People who demonize others claim that they don't and then they go right ahead and do just that. Rhea points to years of examples. That's right for here, but in reality it is centuries of examples. The problem is some of us just cannot open up and be more inclusive and feel they own society and it will be however they care to define it, leaving out those they choose to leave out. These folks are pretty much always questioning any effort to promote human rights. They seem to support letting the huddled masses continue to huddle and suffer. Their argument is always the same..."I'm fine thank you...now leave me alone."

You can't say it 11 times if the reason you can't breathe is because you're being choked.

He was saying it because of medical issues, not because of being choked.

 

[arkirk]

Somehow the words..."I can't breathe" seem to resonate in my ears... You know you can say that about eleven times before you run out of air? People who demonize others claim that they don't and then they go right ahead and do just that. Rhea points to years of examples. That's right for here, but in reality it is centuries of examples. The problem is some of us just cannot open up and be more inclusive and feel they own society and it will be however they care to define it, leaving out those they choose to leave out. These folks are pretty much always questioning any effort to promote human rights. They seem to support letting the huddled masses continue to huddle and suffer. Their argument is always the same..."I'm fine thank you...now leave me alone."

You can't say it 11 times if the reason you can't breathe is because you're being choked.

He was saying it because of medical issues, not because of being choked.

It well could have been chest compression. The reason doen's matter too much if the reason he couldn't breathe was that he was being attacked by the cops. I once was attacked by people in a Navy barracks. About six thugs threw a mattress over me and held me down by sitting on me. It was terrifying...just terrifying enough I produced enough adrenaline to throw the bastards off. I was scared I was going to die...so heavy was the weight on my chest. Garner wasn't in the best of shape. What the cops did to him was a crime. Quit nit picking on this case...you'll come up a loser.

 

[Rhea]

It's okay with me if you define it for your answer. Then you'll be sure to have it right.

I define racism on an individual level - a moral belief that some races (or ethnic groups) are, because of their genes, morally superior and/or inferior to other races. Unwarranted, unfair, and unreasonable actions taken to harm other individuals based on those beliefs are racist actions.

I do not define racism in one of the broader quasi-Marxist sociological context, one as a phenomenon that exists without conscious belief in either an individual or institution. Racism is in the hearts of individuals, it is not a “structural” or “institutional” flaw of "the system".

Finally, I differentiate between racism, bigotry, and simple prejudice. Bigotry is little more than a gut feeling, a dislike or hostility to certain "kinds" of persons. Simple prejudice is more akin to the common actions of many whites in the 1950s, people who upheld mundane customs because they did not wish to be seen as socially "indecent" (e.g. a white boy inviting his black playmate to supper with the white boy's family).

I have no definition for racialism. It used to be identical to the term "racism", but some use it in other manners. For the sake of discussion, I will assume it means racism.

I have no idea what "racism denial" means. It may refer to an individuals denial of there own racists beliefs, denial of others individual racism or denial of racism as a pervasive and unconscious social structure.

I would define "pseudo" Science as any racial claims that it is a part of science but which has not been represented in the academic or expert literature.

Is that sufficient for discussion, or do you have objections?

How about we define "racism denial" as the denial of the existence of harmful racist actions.
Other than that, sure, sounds fine. We've got a racist, who performs racist actions.

Sounds like you do not wish to discuss the existence of the possible multiplier effect of racists doing racist actions in concert, or as a group or from a position of using regular institutions as tools of their racist actions, especially in larger numbers.

So take the individual. How do you think they react when someone opens a discussion with them about a racist action being racist (and harmful)? Do you think they always say, "yeah, I do that based on their race and I'm proud of it and I'm not stopping," or do some of them react differently than owning it?

 

[Davka]

Davka: Sometimes some people use some really dishonest arguments to defend racism.

Y'know, if you had put it like that to begin with, I don't think you'd get half as many objections. Maybe next time you can start with this and try for an actual discussion instead of a bait and troll party.

Y'know, if you had read the OP for content, instead of ASSuming that it was intended as a personal attack (an odd thing to think, considering the title), I don't think you'd have had half as many . . .

Oh, wait. Yes, you would.

n/m.

 

[dismal]

Y'know, if you had put it like that to begin with, I don't think you'd get half as many objections. Maybe next time you can start with this and try for an actual discussion instead of a bait and troll party.

Y'know, if you had read the OP for content, instead of ASSuming that it was intended as a personal attack (an odd thing to think, considering the title), I don't think you'd have had half as many . . .

Oh, wait. Yes, you would.

n/m.

Tip: Your original post was not taken as a personal attack. It was taken as a sophomoric and self-indulgent pile of strawmen and otherwise useless drivel.

These are the things that were taken as personal attacks:

Why don't you try applying logic?

You might want to educate yourself. but then you'd have to stop with all the racist and misogynistic ignorance, or stop claiming ignorance of your bigotry.

I'm sorry that you are so dead-set against learning. Racial bigotry is not the same as racism.

You seem resistant to any conversation that might result in your absorbing new information.

pendejo, you need to sit down and shut up if you actually want to learn. or admit that you just want to rant and spew your crap regardless of what anyone else actually has to say.

it's a figment of your imagination, fueled by your inability to read what is actually written.

This has been explained and re-explained, but you folks don't want to let go of your delusions.

This is the game you're playing, dismal. It's transparent, it's shallow, and it's dishonest. You can stop now.

Internet Tourrette's?

You already know you're full of shit, but not all those reading know you well enough to understand that about you.

Thank you for this demonstration of intellectual dishonesty in the service of desperation.

Oh, and i think you've effectively established yourself as a Highly Affected Racialist. No need to continue, you've won the prize.

You are certainly engaging regularly in race-bigotry on this board, as well as narrow-minded pigheadedness, but that has nothing to do with your race. You seem to be a racialist, but not a racist. That's not uncommon.

As for your childish games, nope, not playing. Everyone here knows who has outed themselves as racialist, I certainly don't need to wave any banners.

You have no partner. You'll just have to go off and play with yourself.

I'm sure this won't be the first time that's happened to you.

Dismal knows that. So does Max. They just don't have the courage to own up to who they really are, so they're playing silly semantic games. They don't want to actually converse, they just want to win. And they want all those pesky people who remind them of reality to go away and leave them alone.

You are a truly pathetic little man, dismal. But then, I'm sure you know that. It's why you chose your nick, right?

"The [gentleman] doth protest too much, methinks."

dismal seems quite personally affected by the OP, almost as if he thought it applied to him.

yes, dear, you can go join your little friends for a congratulatory circle-jerk now. Don't forget the KKK porn.

oooh, look, Max brought the porn!

You, sir, are a piece of work.

You have demonstrated on this thread your willingness to lie, play word games, and weasel out of any semblance of honest discourse. You spent two whole pages pretending that you couldn't understand what a strawman argument is, because admitting it would have meant admitting your vicious little attack was baseless.

Your behavior leaves me no rational, freethinking option other than the "point-and-laugh" approach.

Oh, and if it's not about you, you ain't got nothing to worry about. So why does the OP worry you so very much?

So dismal gets nothing but mockery and barbs from here on in. He's earned it.

There, do you see how I was able to support my claim that you have a habit of engaging in personal attacks with actual examples?

 

[Davka]

There, do you see how I was able to support my claim that you have a habit of engaging in personal attacks with actual examples?

Nope. The Dismal-Denial train has left the station without an engine.

But here - I can support my claim that you have been trolling this thread and attacking me from your very first post. Just read.

 

[dismal]

There, do you see how I was able to support my claim that you have a habit of engaging in personal attacks with actual examples?

Nope. The Dismal-Denial train has left the station without an engine.

But here - I can support my claim that you have been trolling this thread and attacking me from your very first post. Just read.

Thanks for the new material. I'll update the list every 4 or 5 attacks if you don't mind.

 

[Davka]

Nope. The Dismal-Denial train has left the station without an engine.

But here - I can support my claim that you have been trolling this thread and attacking me from your very first post. Just read.

Thanks for the new material. I'll update the list every 4 or 5 attacks if you don't mind.

Just make sure to include your own - especially those posts to which I was responding. You wouldn't want to be discriminatory, because you're such an inclusive, fair-minded kind of guy..

 

[George S]

You can't say it 11 times if the reason you can't breathe is because you're being choked.

He was saying it because of medical issues, not because of being choked.

It well could have been chest compression. The reason doen's matter too much if the reason he couldn't breathe was that he was being attacked by the cops. I once was attacked by people in a Navy barracks. About six thugs threw a mattress over me and held me down by sitting on me. It was terrifying...just terrifying enough I produced enough adrenaline to throw the bastards off. I was scared I was going to die...so heavy was the weight on my chest. Garner wasn't in the best of shape. What the cops did to him was a crime. Quit nit picking on this case...you'll come up a loser.

What is the cause of Garner's death? Medical issues.
What is the cause of his being stressed to the point that the medical issues became fatal? Being subdued, including a choke hold which, in the opinion of many, was excessive.
What is the cause of his being subdued? Resisting arrest.
What is the cause of his resisting arrest? Being arrested.
What is the cause of his being arrested? Suspicion of selling loosies. (Isn't that a serious crime!)
What is the cause of his selling loosies? Cigarette tax policies in NY.
What is the cause of cigarette tax policies? NY legislators.
What is the cause of NY legislators? Elections.

What is a cause? That but for which the event would not have occurred.

Where can a correction be made to prevent future events of this kind? In any of the chain of causes that led to the medical issues (the proximate cause). And, of course there all the causes of those medical conditions.

Which is the most important cause? Police detaining someone with use of excessive force for the purpose of enforcing a law that is non-violent and extremely minor. Being big and black and scary to those particular policemen. Unless they witnessed it themselves they had no real probable cause, otherwise anyone with some unpackaged cigarettes should be detained. (The right way to sell loose Marlboros is to buy one NY pack (with tax stamp) and refill it with low-tax out-of-state fags. This creates plausible deniability and no prosecutor would even consider the case. On a good day you could make a hundred dollars.)