I see the same kind of faulty reasoning on here

[Derec]

You were previously challenged to produce any example of you using "thug" for a white person. We are still waiting for you to do so.

You are welcome to search the archives if you want. I am not going to waste time.
If it's going to shut you up, I'll call a white thug a thug right now.
Let's see, how about this specimen?
White enough for you? Fits all the necessary requirements. Ergo, he's a thug.
So will you finally get off my back with the ridiculous notion that I think only black people can be thugs?

 

[Axulus]

I hate neither.

My use of thug is not indiscriminate (I use it judiciously for actual thugs) and it is also independent of race.

but in doing so he has once again shown his racist streak.

Nonsense, but what else's new?

You were previously challenged to produce any example of you using "thug" for a white person. We are still waiting for you to do so.

Then you must be intentionally blind. Even I can recall one prominent thread off the top of my head about Greenpeace "thugs" blockading the ship in Portland thread started by Derec.

 

[Derec]

The reason your protester has taken the comment as referring to her is the same reason that many will be offended by your following comment, one which they've heard the like of many times.

I.e. lack of critical or logical thinking skills? It's basic logic. If we say that there is a set SP (superpredators) and a set B (black people) then saying that there are elements in B ∩ SP does not mean that we are saying that if aw ϵ B then also aw ϵ SP. I.e. nobody called this woman a superpredator.

Those stereotypes do not come from prejudice but from blacks having significantly higher rates of violent crime (5x s many homicides per capita as whites according to FBI for example) than whites. That is a fact. So then it stands to reason that disproportionate number of these "superpredators" will likewise be black.

Whether it's due to your own prejudice, lack of understanding, or privilege is unknown (perhaps all three.)

Or rather none of them. Facts are stubborn things and do not just go away because they are politically incorrect.

You casually toss such comments out, without addressing the systemic issues that your "fact" stems from,

The fact (which you for some reason put in scare quotes) comes from FBI.

much like Hillary casually tossed out her "superpredator" term.

And note that she did not link it with any particular race.

You are speaking in half truths and touting them as entirely accurate.

How is my statement a "half truth"? Please be specific.

Left there dangling on it's own, your "truth" implies that there's something different, even inferior about people of color that causes them to be more violent than whites.

I did not offer any reasons but it is most likely a combination of various factors. However, we should not limit ourselves only to politically correct ones.

It encourages rampant and racist speculation.

Acknowledging facts about crime rates encourages racist speculation? That's one of the stupidest things I have read here in a while.

Absent is the the FACT, (since you are so fond of facts) that people of color have suffered from lack of educational opportunities, lack of financial resources, lack of fair housing, lack of justice in our courts, lack of gainful employment, lack of health care, and lack of general opportunity when compared to whites.

Even if all that is true it does not absolve people from responsibility for crimes.

Even if you think this was miraculously fixed in the '60's (it wasn't)

To a great extent it has. And in some ways blacks have greater educational opportunities under affirmative action. I.e. they can get into colleges with lower grades and test scores than whites.

people of color are trying to play catch up in a game where white people started running several hundred years ago, while they got off the starting line in the latter half of last century, and frankly, are still trying to run with a ball and chain attached to their ankle.

Violent crime rates are highest among the young. People born in the 1980s and 1990s. This excuse of racial discrimination is wearing very thin.

In short, she has lived her entire life with white people tossing accusations and "facts" such as yours, and she knows when people are speaking about her - even if they don't use the word. Many people on this board think you are a racist and misogynist even though very few have called you one directly, yet I suspect you know this is how people feel about you.

Then "many" are wrong.

 

[arkirk]

I.e. lack of critical or logical thinking skills? It's basic logic. If we say that there is a set SP (superpredators) and a set B (black people) then saying that there are elements in B ∩ SP does not mean that we are saying that if aw ϵ B then also aw ϵ SP. I.e. nobody called this woman a superpredator.

Those stereotypes do not come from prejudice but from blacks having significantly higher rates of violent crime (5x s many homicides per capita as whites according to FBI for example) than whites. That is a fact. So then it stands to reason that disproportionate number of these "superpredators" will likewise be black.

Whether it's due to your own prejudice, lack of understanding, or privilege is unknown (perhaps all three.)

Or rather none of them. Facts are stubborn things and do not just go away because they are politically incorrect.

You casually toss such comments out, without addressing the systemic issues that your "fact" stems from,

The fact (which you for some reason put in scare quotes) comes from FBI.

much like Hillary casually tossed out her "superpredator" term.

And note that she did not link it with any particular race.

You are speaking in half truths and touting them as entirely accurate.

How is my statement a "half truth"? Please be specific.

Left there dangling on it's own, your "truth" implies that there's something different, even inferior about people of color that causes them to be more violent than whites.

I did not offer any reasons but it is most likely a combination of various factors. However, we should not limit ourselves only to politically correct ones.

It encourages rampant and racist speculation.

Acknowledging facts about crime rates encourages racist speculation? That's one of the stupidest things I have read here in a while.

Absent is the the FACT, (since you are so fond of facts) that people of color have suffered from lack of educational opportunities, lack of financial resources, lack of fair housing, lack of justice in our courts, lack of gainful employment, lack of health care, and lack of general opportunity when compared to whites.

Even if all that is true it does not absolve people from responsibility for crimes.

Even if you think this was miraculously fixed in the '60's (it wasn't)

To a great extent it has. And in some ways blacks have greater educational opportunities under affirmative action. I.e. they can get into colleges with lower grades and test scores than whites.

people of color are trying to play catch up in a game where white people started running several hundred years ago, while they got off the starting line in the latter half of last century, and frankly, are still trying to run with a ball and chain attached to their ankle.

Violent crime rates are highest among the young. People born in the 1980s and 1990s. This excuse of racial discrimination is wearing very thin.

In short, she has lived her entire life with white people tossing accusations and "facts" such as yours, and she knows when people are speaking about her - even if they don't use the word. Many people on this board think you are a racist and misogynist even though very few have called you one directly, yet I suspect you know this is how people feel about you.

Then "many" are wrong.

Maybe not, Derec. The truth is we are not here to "bring people to heel" here. We are not here to crush others. We are here to share ideas and try to come up with agreements that make our living better informed better understood. What I have seen from you is an effort to prevent the expression of anything but your own ideas...and now you actually declare "the many are wrong."

 

[laughing dog]

I hate neither.

My use of thug is not indiscriminate (I use it judiciously for actual thugs) and it is also independent of race.

but in doing so he has once again shown his racist streak.

Nonsense, but what else's new?

You were previously challenged to produce any example of you using "thug" for a white person. We are still waiting for you to do so.

Then you must be intentionally blind. Even I can recall one prominent thread off the top of my head about Greenpeace "thugs" blockading the ship in Portland thread started by Derec.

Except those protesters were not actual thugs by any normal definition. In other words, that is an example of an indiscriminate usage, something Derec denies doing.

 

[Axulus]

I hate neither.

My use of thug is not indiscriminate (I use it judiciously for actual thugs) and it is also independent of race.

but in doing so he has once again shown his racist streak.

Nonsense, but what else's new?

You were previously challenged to produce any example of you using "thug" for a white person. We are still waiting for you to do so.

Then you must be intentionally blind. Even I can recall one prominent thread off the top of my head about Greenpeace "thugs" blockading the ship in Portland thread started by Derec.

Except those protesters were not actual thugs by any normal definition. In other words, that is an example of an indiscriminate usage, something Derec denies doing.

Goalpost shift. She asked for an example of "thug" used for a white person by Derec and it was provided.

 

[dismal]

Derec is defending a woman and Hillary Clinton at that.

I guess that is some kind of progress

I've often wondered who Derec hates more... Hillary Clinton or black people. This thread answered that question for me.

As to the OP, it reads to me like Derec is still desperately trying to defend his indiscriminate use of the word "thug" to refer to black people (and ONLY black people); but in doing so he has once again shown his racist streak.

This is a really foul thing for someone to say about another forummer. Someone should call a moderator.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I calls them as I sees them, regardless of race or gender. I know that's a difficult concept for some on here.

I guess that is some kind of progress

No, it's always been that way.

It's not difficult at all. Perhaps you wish it was, since you're so busy speaking truth to power and all, but unfortunately your type of attitude is all to prevalent for anyone to think you're unique somehow.

 

[braces_for_impact]

In any case, we don't have to guess at what the protester meant, since she spelled it out so succinctly.

 

[Derec]

In any case, we don't have to guess at what the protester meant, since she spelled it out so succinctly.

Funny how she uses euphemism "at risk youth" for teenage gangbanging thugs, many of them murderers.
But at least RI backed away from her ridiculous allegation that Hillary was calling and and black people in general "superpredators".
Kahton Anderson is not a mere "at risk youth". Neither were the Hardaway brothers nor their 11 year old victim (himself a gangbanging murderer).
The Hardaway hit was one of triggers of the "superpredator" scare and the Anderson case shows that deadly teenage gangbanging is not behind us, even if it is not nearly as bad as in the 1990s.

To paraphrase Heisenberg, these youth are not at risk, they are the risk.

 

[dismal]

Hillary was clearly lauding the anti-gang efforts of the Clinton administration in the 1996 speech.

If we (well, some of us) have now come to the point where being anti-gang is something to be criticized for, Hillary deserves this criticism.

Perhaps she can give a tearful speech in which she reveals she has looked deep within her soul and her position on gangs has evolved since then. I'm sure Goldman can come up with the $250,000 to pay for it.

 

[KeepTalking]

You were previously challenged to produce any example of you using "thug" for a white person. We are still waiting for you to do so.

You are welcome to search the archives if you want. I am not going to waste time.
If it's going to shut you up, I'll call a white thug a thug right now.
Let's see, how about this specimen?
White enough for you? Fits all the necessary requirements. Ergo, he's a thug.
So will you finally get off my back with the ridiculous notion that I think only black people can be thugs?

This, at least, is progress. After months of your being called out for using the dog whistle, you have finally taken a couple of seconds to google a story about a white criminal, so that you can come back and call that person a thug.

Now, the follow up question I have for you is this: did our calling you out cause any introspection as to how your propensity to call black people thugs gives us the impression that you are being racist? Or, was this just a knee jerk defense? Will you pause to reflect on how you might be perceived before you start typing "thug" or "dindu" to refer to another black person, and then another, and then another. Or, will you simply point back to this singular post to show that you once took two seconds to google a white criminal for the specific purpose of calling that person a thug, so you can't possibly be a racist?

 

[braces_for_impact]

In any case, we don't have to guess at what the protester meant, since she spelled it out so succinctly.

Funny how she uses euphemism "at risk youth" for teenage gangbanging thugs, many of them murderers.
But at least RI backed away from her ridiculous allegation that Hillary was calling and and black people in general "superpredators".
Kahton Anderson is not a mere "at risk youth". Neither were the Hardaway brothers nor their 11 year old victim (himself a gangbanging murderer).
The Hardaway hit was one of triggers of the "superpredator" scare and the Anderson case shows that deadly teenage gangbanging is not behind us, even if it is not nearly as bad as in the 1990s.

To paraphrase Heisenberg, these youth are not at risk, they are the risk.

There are times I really start getting angry with you, but it always seems to turn into pity. Over time I've watched your posts on this forum, usually not replying to your comments because I pretty much consider it a lost cause or waste of time. Today though I realized it's not a waste of time. A lot of people feel like you, but they're better at hiding it. I think sometimes, especially as white people, we need to have your kind of ignorance writ large in our face as an ugly reminder, and a way to reveal our own biases.

In a way, you remind me a bit of a guy I know at work. When I met him he seemed very likable, we got along well. He seemed like a really good guy. He's a gay atheist, and he seemed to have a good head on his shoulders. As I got to know him though I realized he believed in a lot of conspiracy type stuff, and from this followed antisemitism. It was a very ugly thing to behold, and it always turned me off to the point that I just couldn't be his friend. I'm the type that stands up to that sort of thing, whether it's here, on Facebook say, or in person, so we would be at constant odds. He insists he's not racist or antisemitic, but according to him Jews run Hollywood, the media, the banking systems of the world and are pretty much the root of most of the world's problems. They're almost universally greedy and evil. It's amazing to me because he's so quick to point out the same behavior from religious people saying all the same things about homosexuals but when it comes to Jews he's just blind.

I don't know you personally, and since your ugly side is really the only side I know, you don't have that in common with him. What you do have in common is the lack of self awareness. It's very puzzling to me. There's just no introspection there. No empathy, and everything is very black and white if you'll excuse the pun. In a way it's fascinating because to those that aren't racist on the outside looking in, it's so obviously confirmation bias in real time. Much like a debate between a theist and a Christian.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I calls them as I sees them,

And how you see them is what causes your difficulties.

regardless of race or gender. I know that's a difficult concept for some on here.

I guess that is some kind of progress

No, it's always been that way.

If you are saying you haven't changed in all the years you have been posting on this board and all its previous incarnations and you never will, I'll buy that.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You were previously challenged to produce any example of you using "thug" for a white person. We are still waiting for you to do so.

You are welcome to search the archives if you want. I am not going to waste time.

And searching for something you haven't done would definitely be a waste of time.

If it's going to shut you up, I'll call a white thug a thug right now.
Let's see, how about this specimen?
White enough for you? Fits all the necessary requirements. Ergo, he's a thug.
So will you finally get off my back with the ridiculous notion that I think only black people can be thugs?

You know this doesn't count. If you have to be told or reminded to do something and then you do it, it doesn't count as something you have always done.

 

[fromderinside]

Hillary was clearly lauding the anti-gang efforts of the Clinton administration in the 1996 speech.

If we (well, some of us) have now come to the point where being anti-gang is something to be criticized for, Hillary deserves this criticism.

Perhaps she can give a tearful speech in which she reveals she has looked deep within her soul and her position on gangs has evolved since then. I'm sure Goldman can come up with the $250,000 to pay for it.

I'd use the trustworthy "place forefinger over thumb and move back and forth" except I recognize you are a crooked little man who holds a crooked little cane in his crooked little hand and walks on his crooked leg down that crooked little path to his crooked old house filled with tiny crooked thoughts .......

 

[arkirk]

You are welcome to search the archives if you want. I am not going to waste time.

And searching for something you haven't done would definitely be a waste of time.

If it's going to shut you up, I'll call a white thug a thug right now.
Let's see, how about this specimen?
White enough for you? Fits all the necessary requirements. Ergo, he's a thug.
So will you finally get off my back with the ridiculous notion that I think only black people can be thugs?

You know this doesn't count. If you have to be told or reminded to do something and then you do it, it doesn't count as something you have always done.

Derec doesn't hate JUST BLACK PEOPLE. He also hates poor people of all colors and women...all of which to him can be rightfully dubbed THUGS, LIARS AND PARASITES. I think he identifies with the 1%. I there was a time in the early sixties when white motorcycle gangs wore a patch on their vests.....(1%) and that was their badge of honor...they were the 1% not afraid to be violent. Actually today's new wealthier 1% pretty much pursue an only slightly less visible sort of violence against the rest of us...economic violence...and its effect on society is far more devastating.

 

[Derec]

Derec doesn't hate JUST BLACK PEOPLE. He also hates poor people of all colors and women...

Nonsense and personal insults. In other words, typical arkirk.

all of which to him can be rightfully dubbed THUGS, LIARS AND PARASITES.

I disagree with you there.

I think he identifies with the 1%. I there was a time in the early sixties when white motorcycle gangs wore a patch on their vests.....(1%) and that was their badge of honor...they were the 1% not afraid to be violent. Actually today's new wealthier 1% pretty much pursue an only slightly less visible sort of violence against the rest of us...economic violence...and its effect on society is far more devastating.

Is there a point at the end of this ad hominem that you forgot to include?

 

[Derec]

You know this doesn't count.

Can't say I am surprised at shifting of goalposts.

But to give you an explanation, not that you will accept or even understand it, the reason white thugs are rarely discussed on here is that nobody is blocking interstate bridges or police precincts just because a white thug got himself shot by police. And major US cities are not proclaiming days to celebrate them either.

 

[Derec]

There are times I really start getting angry with you, but it always seems to turn into pity. Over time I've watched your posts on this forum, usually not replying to your comments because I pretty much consider it a lost cause or waste of time. Today though I realized it's not a waste of time. A lot of people feel like you, but they're better at hiding it. I think sometimes, especially as white people, we need to have your kind of ignorance writ large in our face as an ugly reminder, and a way to reveal our own biases.

And what about your own biases? You seem to suffer from a rather severe case of white guilt, with your "as white people" nonsense.
In the post you were replying to in such a nasty personal manner (attacking the person, not the argument or issues), what do you deem "ugly" or "ignorant"? Please be specific.

In a way, you remind me a bit of a guy I know at work. When I met him he seemed very likable, we got along well. He seemed like a really good guy. He's a gay atheist, and he seemed to have a good head on his shoulders. As I got to know him though I realized he believed in a lot of conspiracy type stuff, and from this followed antisemitism. It was a very ugly thing to behold, and it always turned me off to the point that I just couldn't be his friend. I'm the type that stands up to that sort of thing, whether it's here, on Facebook say, or in person, so we would be at constant odds. He insists he's not racist or antisemitic, but according to him Jews run Hollywood, the media, the banking systems of the world and are pretty much the root of most of the world's problems. They're almost universally greedy and evil. It's amazing to me because he's so quick to point out the same behavior from religious people saying all the same things about homosexuals but when it comes to Jews he's just blind.

I do not follow any conspiracy theories. The fact that there are violent gangs active in major US cities is undisputed fact, not a conspiracy theory. The fact that these gangs tend to recruit very young members to commit very adult crimes is not a conspiracy theory either. Lastly, the specific murder cases that I referenced actually happened. That is not a conspiracy theory either.
Do you have anything at all to say about specific points I brought up or are you content to engage in personal attacks and rambling about your coworker?

I What you do have in common is the lack of self awareness. It's very puzzling to me. There's just no introspection there. No empathy, and everything is very black and white if you'll excuse the pun. In a way it's fascinating because to those that aren't racist on the outside looking in, it's so obviously confirmation bias in real time. Much like a debate between a theist and a Christian.

This is not an introspective issue. My post was about gang violence, specifically by very young people, and how I do not think they should be coddled or euphemized as mere "at-risk youth" as if they were producing Dan Savage's podcast and not committing serious felonies. The actual point of this thread is lack of logical thinking on part of the protester who conflated statements about gang violence to be a statement a) only about black people and b) about all black people. Both are major failures in thinking and giving such thinking a pass for the sake of political correctness (can't criticize black activists/protesters or else you are "racist").
I am not a gangbanger so I do not need to introspect myself on this issue. Perhaps you do have that need, I do not know you.

Let me ask you -what should be done with teens in gangs who commit serious felonies, up to and including murder?