Where is Bernie Goetz when you need him?

[Malintent]

When Derec used the word "Thugs", he was referring to bad people he has thought had harmed the world.

YOUR (and others) observation that "bad people" tend to be black people is what may be considered racist. My issue with this has nothing to do with Derec (or anyone else) on a personal level, or even about their views. It is about labeling words as racist because the observer of usage is injecting their own racism (in this case, that the "bad people" are black '40 out of 43 times"). Would the use of the term thug, referring to the perpetrator of a crime, be "not racist" if 20 out of 40 times the thug was white?

How many white thugs does it take to unscrew this term?

Do you not know what a euphemism is?

What really agitates me is this air of bullshit innocence coming off of Derec and friends once they're called out. It makes sense though since people like Derec are typically cowards who can't stand by their dick-shittery the moment someone calls them to answer for it. They're the type of people who calls blacks feral apes on their facebook feeds but then back down and play dumb the moment a camera crew comes to their front door to ask about it.

Maybe, maybe not. I understand the agitation. My agitation is that white supremacists, terrorists, radical BLM'ers, SJWs etc.. do not get to redefine the meaning of words to fit their preconceived notions of intent.

 

[dismal]

What really agitates me is this air of bullshit innocence coming off of Derec and friends once they're called out.

That is what I am finding *amusing* too. It is Derec's long long long history of racist-sounding posts that have caused multiple people here to assume it was Derec making a racist-reference yet again. It is not at all anyone else being racist. It was/is everyone else assuming Derec was using the word "thug" in his usual manner - to mean "black men". Everyone here knows this, so anyone here claiming otherwise is simply trying to take this opportunity to malign the character of other posters.

As for Derec, this has certainly turned into a win-win for him Everyone here, including him, knows damned well that Derec most likely assumed the train muggers are young black men, but he certainly has plausible deniability this time.

So now, if the train muggers turn out to be POC, Derec can feel justified in his racist assumptions. On the other hand, if they turn out to be white teenagers, he will forever be able to point to this thread as the one and only time Derec called white boys "thugs"

Again, we are having a discussion in which the race of the thugs in question was, and still is, not known.

So, if you relied on your prejudices about Derec to assume this post was a racist post you were simply wrong. There is no escaping this by pointing to past posts.

 

[LordKiran]

That is what I am finding *amusing* too. It is Derec's long long long history of racist-sounding posts that have caused multiple people here to assume it was Derec making a racist-reference yet again. It is not at all anyone else being racist. It was/is everyone else assuming Derec was using the word "thug" in his usual manner - to mean "black men". Everyone here knows this, so anyone here claiming otherwise is simply trying to take this opportunity to malign the character of other posters.

As for Derec, this has certainly turned into a win-win for him Everyone here, including him, knows damned well that Derec most likely assumed the train muggers are young black men, but he certainly has plausible deniability this time.

So now, if the train muggers turn out to be POC, Derec can feel justified in his racist assumptions. On the other hand, if they turn out to be white teenagers, he will forever be able to point to this thread as the one and only time Derec called white boys "thugs"

Again, we are having a discussion in which the race of the thugs in question was, and still is, not known.

So, if you relied on your prejudices about Derec to assume this post was a racist post you were simply wrong. There is no escaping this by pointing to past posts.

Prejudism is unjust because it applies your expectations for a certain group to the individual when the individual should be allowed to stand on his own merits. Here we are judging the individual based on his merits (or lack there of) So to call it prejudism as if it is somehow comparable to Derec's distrust and dislike of blacks as a whole is very dishonest to say the least.

 

[LordKiran]

Do you not know what a euphemism is?

What really agitates me is this air of bullshit innocence coming off of Derec and friends once they're called out. It makes sense though since people like Derec are typically cowards who can't stand by their dick-shittery the moment someone calls them to answer for it. They're the type of people who calls blacks feral apes on their facebook feeds but then back down and play dumb the moment a camera crew comes to their front door to ask about it.

Maybe, maybe not. I understand the agitation. My agitation is that white supremacists, terrorists, radical BLM'ers, SJWs etc.. do not get to redefine the meaning of words to fit their preconceived notions of intent.

Again, this whole derail started because Derec insists that we are being racist by assuming that when he uses the word "Thug" he's referring to black people. Nobody here suggested that "Thug" in itself is a racist term to the best of my knowledge. At worst, it's meaning within the culture of this board has taken on racist connotations due to how it is used by Derec as a euphemism for words deemed too horrible for polite society.

That's all. The fact that Derec is now actively trying to obfuscate this with red herring after red herring indicates that he is consciously aware of this as well and actively chooses not to acknowledge it.

You hear that Derec? We're on to you. You're not fooling anybody that wouldn't have already been on board with you from the word go.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

when Derec used the word "thugs" he was referring to 'blacks that he has thought had harmed the world'

When Derec used the word "Thugs", he was referring to bad people he has thought had harmed the world.

Why do you continue to ignore most of my posts if you are going to reply to them. He has used the term for anyone from peaceful black protestors to black victims of police violence to violent black criminals.

YOUR (and others) observation that "bad people" tend to be black people is what may be considered racist.

You continue to say this as if you are trying to score some weak goal from your own end, but it isn't even reaching the midfield line. This isn't about race, this is about a word's meaning in the context of a particular poster.

My issue with this has nothing to do with Derec (or anyone else) on a personal level, or even about their views. It is about labeling words as racist because the observer of usage is injecting their own racism (in this case, that the "bad people" are black '40 out of 43 times").

Jebus Christ! There is that you aren't reading my posts but want to reply to them anyway thing again. I've repeatedly said that this was never a racism claim. Rather than when Derec uses the term "thugs", he almost exclusively is referring to black (insert term here: protester, police violence victim, criminal).

Would the use of the term thug, referring to the perpetrator of a crime, be "not racist" if 20 out of 40 times the thug was white?

I never claimed race. I claimed that when Derec uses word X he means Y, based on his extensive use of the word. Why is this even controversial?

 

[Toni]

when Derec used the word "thugs" he was referring to 'blacks that he has thought had harmed the world'

When Derec used the word "Thugs", he was referring to bad people he has thought had harmed the world.

YOUR (and others) observation that "bad people" tend to be black people is what may be considered racist. My issue with this has nothing to do with Derec (or anyone else) on a personal level, or even about their views. It is about labeling words as racist because the observer of usage is injecting their own racism (in this case, that the "bad people" are black '40 out of 43 times"). Would the use of the term thug, referring to the perpetrator of a crime, be "not racist" if 20 out of 40 times the thug was white?

How many white thugs does it take to unscrew this term?

No. My observation--shared by many fellow posters--is that Derec uses 'thug' almost exclusively with regards to blacks. They don't even have to be criminals-- just people that Derec thinks are bad. And black. Which is why I made an assumption, based on a word he used in his post.

For the most part, he completely ignores criminal acts by white males. And when push comes to shove, he favors male over female if all parties are black.

 

[dismal]

I claimed that when Derec uses word X he means Y

In a thread in which he definitively and conclusively did not.

That's why you look so silly trying to defend your error.

 

[dismal]

Which is why I made an assumption

And....you were wrong. It was an incorrect assumption.

That's on you, not someone else. It is not justifiable, or justified by how reasonable you thought your error was when you made it.

 

[laughing dog]

Which is why I made an assumption

And....you were wrong. It was an incorrect assumption.

That's on you, not someone else. It is not justifiable, or justified by how reasonable you thought your error was when you made it.

I’m not sure why it is so important to you to justify your lack of reasoning and reading skills and being wrong. Just accept that’s exactly what you did and move on.

 

[LordKiran]

And....you were wrong. It was an incorrect assumption.

That's on you, not someone else. It is not justifiable, or justified by how reasonable you thought your error was when you made it.

I’m not sure why it is so important to you to justify your lack of reasoning and reading skills and being wrong. Just accept that’s exactly what you did and move on.

It's because Dismal possesses a simplistic mindset which has no room for outliers and exceptions to general trends. It's a common theme among right wing thinkers to take the "All or nothing" approach to discourse, because that way he never has to concede anything. He can just point to any little exception that proofs the rule and wash his hands of it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And....you were wrong. It was an incorrect assumption.

That's on you, not someone else. It is not justifiable, or justified by how reasonable you thought your error was when you made it.

I’m not sure why it is so important to you to justify your lack of reasoning and reading skills and being wrong. Just accept that’s exactly what you did and move on.

Actually, it isn't certain Toni was wrong. And if she was wrong, it was hardly a mistake that warrants dozens of posts to hash out their crime.

 

[laughing dog]

I’m not sure why it is so important to you to justify your lack of reasoning and reading skills and being wrong. Just accept that’s exactly what you did and move on.

Actually, it isn't certain Toni was wrong. And if she was wrong, it was hardly a mistake that warrants dozens of posts to hash out their crime.

Toni used documented posting history to draw a reasonable conclusion. Toni's mistake is responding to a number of posters who are uninterested in using basic reading and reasoning skills in this discussion.

 

[dismal]

I’m not sure why it is so important to you to justify your lack of reasoning and reading skills and being wrong. Just accept that’s exactly what you did and move on.

Actually, it isn't certain Toni was wrong. And if she was wrong, it was hardly a mistake that warrants dozens of posts to hash out their crime.

Yes, one post in which it was established that it was unknown what race the criminals were should have been enough for those who incorrectly assumed the criminals were black -- based not on facts but on based on their own prejudices -- to acknowledge they were wrong to have relied on their prejudices.

But it's the internet.

 

[Arctish]

I claimed that when Derec uses word X he means Y

In a thread in which he definitively and conclusively did not.

There's nothing definitive or conclusive about it.

Derec didn't know the race(s) of the perpetrators when he used the word 'thugs' to describe them. His use of the word 'thugs' indicates he presumed they were black. So does his posting history. If a crime was committed, especially a crime involving gang-type behavior, he typically assumes it was committed by blacks.

 

[RavenSky]

Returning to the situation in the OP, some of the suspects in the swarm attack have been identified http://kron4.com/2017/04/26/bart-identifies-multiple-suspects-in-mob-attack/):

BART officials have identified multiple suspects in the mob attack that happened over the weekend at Oakland’s Coliseum station.

Investigators were able to identify the suspects by using video surveillance from inside the train car, according to BART officials.

Just wanted to acknowledge this post (mainly because it is the only on-topic post in the last several pages) and let you know that I did read the linked article. Thank you for the update on the actual case!

 

[laughing dog]

Actually, it isn't certain Toni was wrong. And if she was wrong, it was hardly a mistake that warrants dozens of posts to hash out their crime.

Yes, one post in which it was established that it was unknown what race the criminals were should have been enough for those who incorrectly assumed the criminals were black -- based not on facts but on based on their own prejudices -- to acknowledge they were wrong to have relied on their prejudices.

Why don't you model that behavior and acknowledge that you have been deliberately mischaracterizing the facts in order to draw an observably false conclusion.

But it's the internet.

You have already made a bullshit excuse for your behavior.

 

[Ford]

Returning to the situation in the OP, some of the suspects in the swarm attack have been identified http://kron4.com/2017/04/26/bart-identifies-multiple-suspects-in-mob-attack/):

Just wanted to acknowledge this post (mainly because it is the only on-topic post in the last several pages) and let you know that I did read the linked article. Thank you for the update on the actual case!

And the video is not being released because the suspects are too young to reveal their identities let alone their race.

So circling back to the OP, Derec wants vigilantes to gun down teenagers on a train full of innocent bystanders.

Anybody else think that's a bad idea?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Just wanted to acknowledge this post (mainly because it is the only on-topic post in the last several pages) and let you know that I did read the linked article. Thank you for the update on the actual case!

And the video is not being released because the suspects are too young to reveal their identities let alone their race.

So circling back to the OP, Derec wants vigilantes to gun down teenagers on a train full of innocent bystanders.

Anybody else think that's a bad idea?

Depends, what is the race of the bystanders?

 

[Ford]

And the video is not being released because the suspects are too young to reveal their identities let alone their race.

So circling back to the OP, Derec wants vigilantes to gun down teenagers on a train full of innocent bystanders.

Anybody else think that's a bad idea?

Depends, what is the race of the bystanders?

Thug?

 

[LordKiran]

Depends, what is the race of the bystanders?

Thug?

Foreign Thug, or Thug American?