• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

I see the same kind of faulty reasoning on here

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.
The white people in Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, etc.... did a lot more damage to magnitudes more people than any interstate blocking protesters, yet you do not call those people "thugs". And, yes, those white financiers did commit crimes. Those people are discussed, but rarely called thugs by anyone, let alone you. Sorry, but your bias is obvious to just about anyone whose head is not up their ass.
 
The white people in Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, etc....
And only white people work in high echelons of those institutions?
did a lot more damage to magnitudes more people than any interstate blocking protesters, yet you do not call those people "thugs".
Because questionable banking practices are not part of the definition of the word.
And, yes, those white financiers did commit crimes.
Again, you are pretending that all those financiers were white. It is you (and those like you) who are racist, not I.
Those people are discussed, but rarely called thugs by anyone, let alone you.
Because they are not thugs. Words have meanings.
Sorry, but your bias is obvious to just about anyone whose head is not up their ass.
Bias in favor of reality, sure.
 
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?

Why do you regard what I wrote as ad hominem? What you are calling "faulty reasoning" is actually not that at all but the result instead of another human capability of which you seem entirely ignorant. That is simply empathy. You seem unable to consider the lives others experience. I noticed that right after the post of yours quoted here, you got right back to raving about thugs again and about white innocence. You really need to try to think some new thoughts. As it stands, you are pretty much a repeating Rubio. Just saying the same condemnations over and over again, not realizing that all of your condemnation and justification for mistreatment of black people, poor people and women does not lead to any significant change. I don't think of you as evil, but rather as a lazy mind or at least an advocate of mental laziness when it comes to social problems.
 
And only white people work in high echelons of those institutions?
Your evasion is duly noted.
Because questionable banking practices are not part of the definition of the word.
Neither are peaceful protests, but that doesn't stop you. Your double standard is duly noited.
Again, you are pretending that all those financiers were white. It is you (and those like you) who are racist, not I.
I am not pretending anything. I don't think those people are thugs at all. But they fit your definition. Your evasion and your double standard is duly noted.
Because they are not thugs. Words have meanings.
Words do have meanings. Peaceful protesters are not thugs, but that doesn't stop you when those protesters are black. Your double standard is duly noted.
Bias in favor of reality, sure.
By now, you must be well aware that when your head is up your ass, you are seeing reality, but just a small biased and shitty section of it.
 
Why do you regard what I wrote as ad hominem?
Because it is personally attacking me.
What you are calling "faulty reasoning" is actually not that at all but the result instead of another human capability of which you seem entirely ignorant. That is simply empathy.
Wrong. That is not empathy. What it is is emphatically faulty reasoning. Her assertion that Hillary called "black people" superpredators is objectively false. Such elementary mistake is not empathy nor is calling it out lack of same.
You seem unable to consider the lives others experience.
I am too. Just because I disagree with your conclusions does not mean I lack empathy. I have empathy for the 39 year old who was killed by that 14 year old in gang crossfire. I have empathy for the 14 year old girl who was accidentally killed by the 11 year old gangbanger (later to become victim of murder by teenage enforcers from his own gang).
These teenagers had a choice not to pick up a gun and fire it. Their victims were not given such choice.
I noticed that right after the post of yours quoted here, you got right back to raving about thugs again and about white innocence.
Where did I use terms such as "white innocence"? You are projecting your own feelings of "white guilt" and think that everybody who rejects notion that being white automatically makes one guilty must embrace the opposite, but equally ridiculous notion that being white renders one innocent.
You really need to try to think some new thoughts.
You really need to stop ascribing to me thoughts I do not think.
As it stands, you are pretty much a repeating Rubio. Just saying the same condemnations over and over again, not realizing that all of your condemnation and justification for mistreatment of black people, poor people and women does not lead to any significant change. I don't think of you as evil, but rather as a lazy mind or at least an advocate of mental laziness when it comes to social problems.
Nothing lazy about rejecting faulty logic or rejecting coddling of those who commit serious crimes as teenagers. I think they should have opportunity for parole and that their age should be taken into account, but I do not think they should be tried in family court and given a short juvenile sentence either, like Willie Bosket.
 
Because it is personally attacking me.
What you are calling "faulty reasoning" is actually not that at all but the result instead of another human capability of which you seem entirely ignorant. That is simply empathy.
Wrong. That is not empathy. What it is is emphatically faulty reasoning. Her assertion that Hillary called "black people" superpredators is objectively false. Such elementary mistake is not empathy nor is calling it out lack of same.
You seem unable to consider the lives others experience.
I am too. Just because I disagree with your conclusions does not mean I lack empathy. I have empathy for the 39 year old who was killed by that 14 year old in gang crossfire. I have empathy for the 14 year old girl who was accidentally killed by the 11 year old gangbanger (later to become victim of murder by teenage enforcers from his own gang).
These teenagers had a choice not to pick up a gun and fire it. Their victims were not given such choice.
I noticed that right after the post of yours quoted here, you got right back to raving about thugs again and about white innocence.
Where did I use terms such as "white innocence"? You are projecting your own feelings of "white guilt" and think that everybody who rejects notion that being white automatically makes one guilty must embrace the opposite, but equally ridiculous notion that being white renders one innocent.
You really need to try to think some new thoughts.
You really need to stop ascribing to me thoughts I do not think.
As it stands, you are pretty much a repeating Rubio. Just saying the same condemnations over and over again, not realizing that all of your condemnation and justification for mistreatment of black people, poor people and women does not lead to any significant change. I don't think of you as evil, but rather as a lazy mind or at least an advocate of mental laziness when it comes to social problems.
Nothing lazy about rejecting faulty logic or rejecting coddling of those who commit serious crimes as teenagers. I think they should have opportunity for parole and that their age should be taken into account, but I do not think they should be tried in family court and given a short juvenile sentence either, like Willie Bosket.

OK read the post. So what's the relationship with it and the OP?

Bad laws, bad enforcement, juxtaposing today with yesteryear as if morality stays constant even when gays can now get married, when 50% of those behind bars are minority drug users and small time sellers when there is seven to one ratio white to black but a fifty percent black black to ten percent white cop kill ratio at the same time there are 60 percent blacks living in poverty while there is a 15 percent whites living in poverty.

Eyup its all about blacks being lazy, refusing a hand up while new laws still used to convict blacks at a eight to one ratio to whites. there sure is something super predator here but its not Hillary talking about it.

Give us a break Derec. Use a standard pallet to start. You may not be racist but your arguments certainly are such.
 
Because it is personally attacking me.
What you are calling "faulty reasoning" is actually not that at all but the result instead of another human capability of which you seem entirely ignorant. That is simply empathy.
Wrong. That is not empathy. What it is is emphatically faulty reasoning. Her assertion that Hillary called "black people" superpredators is objectively false. Such elementary mistake is not empathy nor is calling it out lack of same.
You seem unable to consider the lives others experience.
I am too. Just because I disagree with your conclusions does not mean I lack empathy. I have empathy for the 39 year old who was killed by that 14 year old in gang crossfire. I have empathy for the 14 year old girl who was accidentally killed by the 11 year old gangbanger (later to become victim of murder by teenage enforcers from his own gang).
These teenagers had a choice not to pick up a gun and fire it. Their victims were not given such choice.
I noticed that right after the post of yours quoted here, you got right back to raving about thugs again and about white innocence.
Where did I use terms such as "white innocence"? You are projecting your own feelings of "white guilt" and think that everybody who rejects notion that being white automatically makes one guilty must embrace the opposite, but equally ridiculous notion that being white renders one innocent.
You really need to try to think some new thoughts.
You really need to stop ascribing to me thoughts I do not think.
As it stands, you are pretty much a repeating Rubio. Just saying the same condemnations over and over again, not realizing that all of your condemnation and justification for mistreatment of black people, poor people and women does not lead to any significant change. I don't think of you as evil, but rather as a lazy mind or at least an advocate of mental laziness when it comes to social problems.
Nothing lazy about rejecting faulty logic or rejecting coddling of those who commit serious crimes as teenagers. I think they should have opportunity for parole and that their age should be taken into account, but I do not think they should be tried in family court and given a short juvenile sentence either, like Willie Bosket.

Man! You need to get control of your anger. You are great at researching odd ball court cases and finding people to condemn. You really should take to heart my recommendation that you take a little more time (perhaps the first time in your life) trying to see things from inside the shoes of those you currently condemn. You are essentially mimicking Trump in your constant citing of extremely rare cases in various minority communities and ascribing those behaviors to the minority community at large. You chronically misrepresent entire cultures and racial groups and build into that misrepresentation a strong negative bias. Just think a bit on what I am saying....:thinking:
 
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, have you ever read what you write? Do you care the impression your writing leaves? If you don't care, you can't then complain when people think unfavorably of you or what you express as your beliefs. If you do care, then you are writing your thoughts in the wrong way in order get people to respect if not like what your have to say.
 
Because it is personally attacking me.

Wrong. That is not empathy. What it is is emphatically faulty reasoning. Her assertion that Hillary called "black people" superpredators is objectively false. Such elementary mistake is not empathy nor is calling it out lack of same.
You seem unable to consider the lives others experience.
I am too. Just because I disagree with your conclusions does not mean I lack empathy. I have empathy for the 39 year old who was killed by that 14 year old in gang crossfire. I have empathy for the 14 year old girl who was accidentally killed by the 11 year old gangbanger (later to become victim of murder by teenage enforcers from his own gang).
These teenagers had a choice not to pick up a gun and fire it. Their victims were not given such choice.
I noticed that right after the post of yours quoted here, you got right back to raving about thugs again and about white innocence.
Where did I use terms such as "white innocence"? You are projecting your own feelings of "white guilt" and think that everybody who rejects notion that being white automatically makes one guilty must embrace the opposite, but equally ridiculous notion that being white renders one innocent.
You really need to try to think some new thoughts.
You really need to stop ascribing to me thoughts I do not think.
As it stands, you are pretty much a repeating Rubio. Just saying the same condemnations over and over again, not realizing that all of your condemnation and justification for mistreatment of black people, poor people and women does not lead to any significant change. I don't think of you as evil, but rather as a lazy mind or at least an advocate of mental laziness when it comes to social problems.
Nothing lazy about rejecting faulty logic or rejecting coddling of those who commit serious crimes as teenagers. I think they should have opportunity for parole and that their age should be taken into account, but I do not think they should be tried in family court and given a short juvenile sentence either, like Willie Bosket.

Man! You need to get control of your anger. You are great at researching odd ball court cases and finding people to condemn. You really should take to heart my recommendation that you take a little more time (perhaps the first time in your life) trying to see things from inside the shoes of those you currently condemn. You are essentially mimicking Trump in your constant citing of extremely rare cases in various minority communities and ascribing those behaviors to the minority community at large. You chronically misrepresent entire cultures and racial groups and build into that misrepresentation a strong negative bias. Just think a bit on what I am saying....:thinking:

No. You need to re-read what he wrote without your strong bias. He hasn't said any of the things you say he has. You see him implying it, not saying it. That is because he isn't saying it. You read it in because you believe he is a racist. Just like the lady in the OP read it into Hillary's words. Hillary said NOTHING about race, but this lady read it in, because Hillary didn't give a long speech about disadvantaged black youth along with it. And even if she did, a lady like in the OP will still be sure to find a problem with what was said, because she's already pre-judged the speaker. Then she says that she doesn't accept Hillary's apology? Why should Hillary apologize to her? She's the one trying to make Hillary look like a racist. She should apologize to Hillary if anything.
 
Last edited:
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?

^^^ that
 
Derec, have you ever read what you write? Do you care the impression your writing leaves? If you don't care, you can't then complain when people think unfavorably of you or what you express as your beliefs. If you do care, then you are writing your thoughts in the wrong way in order get people to respect if not like what your have to say.
I do not understand the hostility toward what I write. I said nothing to disparage any race in general, I merely pointed out that Ashley Williams' reasoning is very faulty because Hillary never said what AW alleges she said. I also pointed out that some teenagers do commit horrific crimes (often as part of gangs) and that their crimes should not be downplayed.
What in any of this is controversial, let alone deserving of unfair attacks and name calling I have been subjected to in this thread (without any action taken by the moderators mind you).
 
Man! You need to get control of your anger.
And you are projecting.
You are great at researching odd ball court cases and finding people to condemn.
These are not odd-ball cases. These are actual cases that represent the kind of kids that were referred to as 'superpredators'. This term does not refer exclusively to black people. It does not refer to all black people. It does not even refer to all kids who have committed crimes. It refers to the kind of kids who, for example, agree to ice a fellow gang member, all of 11 years old, so he would not babble to police. That's not youthful indiscretion. Those are not mere "at risk youth" as AW referred to them.
You really should take to heart my recommendation that you take a little more time (perhaps the first time in your life) trying to see things from inside the shoes of those you currently condemn. ]
I really have no desire to do so. There is no excuse for that behavior.
You are essentially mimicking Trump in your constant citing of extremely rare cases in various minority communities and ascribing those behaviors to the minority community at large.
No, I am certainly not "ascribing those behaviors to the minority community at large". Quite the opposite. It is Ashley Williams and other like her (many on this board) who are wrongfully making that conflation. The whole point of this thread is that calling teens to commit serious violent felonies, including murder, "superpredators" is not the same as calling members of any racial or ethnic group the same.
So please take a moment to read what I actually wrote and apologize for your baseless accusations.
You chronically misrepresent entire cultures and racial groups and build into that misrepresentation a strong negative bias.
That is just plain wrong.
Just think a bit on what I am saying....:thinking:
I would advise you do the same.
 
Last edited:
OK read the post. So what's the relationship with it and the OP?
You don't see it? Read again.
Bad laws, bad enforcement,
Laws against things like murder and robbery are good laws, as is enforcing them.
juxtaposing today with yesteryear
Well yes, this thread is about a #BLM activist digging up a quote from 20 years ago and misrepresenting it. So juxtaposing past and present is very much relevant here.
as if morality stays constant even when gays can now get married,
What does gay marriage have to do with price of tea in China?
Has morality changed on murder? Robbery? Gang activity?
when 50% of those behind bars are minority drug users and small time sellers
Nobody is talking about that here. Nobody called drug users and small time dealers superpredators, but serious violent criminals. Many of them murderers.
when there is seven to one ratio white to black but a fifty percent black black to ten percent white cop kill ratio at the same time there are 60 percent blacks living in poverty while there is a 15 percent whites living in poverty.
And blacks commit 5 times as many homicides per capita as whites. Could that have anything to do with blacks being more likely to get shot by police? And by the way, most victims of these homicides are black as well. Which is why black leaders supported Clinton administration anti-crime efforts - because their communities were suffering greater rates of murder, robbery, etc.
And blacks are more likely to drop out of high school or to have children while teenagers than whites. That has a lot to do with future economic prospects.
A little emphasis on personal responsibility would go a long way, rather than blaming everything on racism.

Eyup its all about blacks being lazy,
Eyup? But no, it's not "all about blacks being lazy". There are lazy people in all groups just like there are criminals or irresponsible people in all races.
But it is undeniable that rates of certain self-destructive behaviors are higher among black people. And as long as we as a society make excuses for black people, blaming all dysfunctions on slavery or racism, things will either not change or change more slowly than they could.
refusing a hand up while new laws still used to convict blacks at a eight to one ratio to whites.
Citation needed.
there sure is something super predator here but its not Hillary talking about it.
Huh?
Give us a break Derec. Use a standard pallet to start.
Can do.
EPAL-pallet.jpg

As standard as they come.
You may not be racist but your arguments certainly are such.
No, they are not.
 
Derec, have you ever read what you write? Do you care the impression your writing leaves? If you don't care, you can't then complain when people think unfavorably of you or what you express as your beliefs. If you do care, then you are writing your thoughts in the wrong way in order get people to respect if not like what your have to say.
I do not understand the hostility toward what I write.
Why not? I and others have taken a considerable amount of time to explain to you what we feel and why we feel that way, and we have done so over the course of multiple years, threads, and message boards. What is unclear to you?
I said nothing to disparage any race in general, I merely pointed out that Ashley Williams' reasoning is very faulty because Hillary never said what AW alleges she said.
Derec, this is not the only thread you have ever started. it is just the latest in a long line of threads, posts and rants where you attack directly or indirectly the person or action of a person of color.
I also pointed out that some teenagers do commit horrific crimes (often as part of gangs) and that their crimes should not be downplayed.
Who here has ever said otherwise? When you constantly say things like they are some great revelation or in opposition to majority opinion, you leave others to infer that you think them either grossly ignorant or promoting some immoral stance that they are not doing. This will not win friends or influence people.
What in any of this is controversial, let alone deserving of unfair attacks and name calling I have been subjected to in this thread (without any action taken by the moderators mind you).
If it isn't controversial, why start the thread?

If it is any consolation to you, when I first heard the "super-predator" quote, while I was not pleased with it and thought it to be a dog-whistle-ly, I did not think it worthy of much discussion, but feared it would get just that. And I also saw Clinton getting called out on it. Just as back during her race for the senate, when she first relied on her proximity in the White House to show that she had policy experience, it would come back to bite her in the ass, which it is doing now. (You don't get to say your experience comes from being involved in your husband's policy making and then not be called to task on the results of those policies.)

I get your surface point Derec, but everything you say here (just like everything I say here) comes with over a decade of baggage consisting of everything else you have ever said. Don't act brand new. You have been posting here too long for that to fly.
 
I get your surface point Derec, but everything you say here (just like everything I say here) comes with over a decade of baggage consisting of everything else you have ever said. Don't act brand new. You have been posting here too long for that to fly.

I am doubly shocked at this statement from Athena. First, because she's admitting Derec has a "surface" point, and that everybody here ignores it to instead lob adhoms at Derec for what they read into his words or what he has said elsewhere. Second, because she insists nothing else will fly, like we are all incapable of addressing topics instead of attacking people. Is this really what a "Freethought" forum is?

Derec does have a point regarding moderators here too. He has been attacked numerous times in this thread, and things have been said that if said against the speaker would be censored and "warnings" handed out. If you are not in the majority here, you know exactly what I'm referring to.
 
I get your surface point Derec, but everything you say here (just like everything I say here) comes with over a decade of baggage consisting of everything else you have ever said. Don't act brand new. You have been posting here too long for that to fly.

I am doubly shocked at this statement from Athena. First, because she's admitting Derec has a "surface" point, and that everybody here ignores it to instead lob adhoms at Derec for what they read into his words or what he has said elsewhere. Second, because she insists nothing else will fly, like we are all incapable of addressing topics instead of attacking people. Is this really what a "Freethought" forum is?

Derec does have a point regarding moderators here too. He has been attacked numerous times in this thread, and things have been said that if said against the speaker would be censored and "warnings" handed out. If you are not in the majority here, you know exactly what I'm referring to.

yep.
 
Originally posted by Derec:
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.

Well, we weren't discussing my biases, but we can in a minute if you like. Since as you say you're so fond of facts, I wasn't personally attacking you, I was stating the fact that you're a racist. Look up the definition: that's you. I don't doubt you don't feel racist. Most racists don't actually admit to it, but you are nevertheless. You want us to attack the issues or arguments, but you don't apply this to your own arguments. You attack an entire race or gender of people over and over again. This is one reason why I say you lack self awareness, because you can easily see it when you think you personally are being attacked, but not when you do it, broad brush style to others. As to your ignorance, I'll give you another rambling example: let's take evolution. The fact that evolution takes place is a fact. Yet, we can't just leave it at that and accept it as the whole story. There's a reason evolution happens. There's a mechanism by which it takes place. There's predictions that can be made, and all of this has explanatory power. You are fond of accusing people of non-white origin of a greater incidence of violent behavior (among other things). You want to leave it at that, directly or indirectly implying that people of color have a collective moral failing somehow, by virtue of their skin color. You haven't provided any explanation. People do things for reasons. There's a mechanism. There's an explanation. There's history. But you don't like black people, so you don't bother looking into that, because of the way you feel about a group of people, collectively. That isn't using logic or reason. This is where your ignorance is obvious and profound.

Now, as far as my biases are concerned, I do not suffer from white guilt. I am sure you think so, because it would allow you to easily dismiss my claims as another deluded liberal white guy with no substance to his arguments. I feel no guilt for what happened to people of color in the past. Disappointment, sure. Regret, yes. But personal guilt? No. I merely acknowledge that I am the beneficiary of a system that was set up for my ease of use, while it makes others have a very difficult time of things. That is a self awareness you lack. That way you don't have to listen, that way you don't have to consider my arguments, and you can remain safe and comfortable where you currently are, wrapped in your moral superiority, with someone you can look down upon so you don't have to look too deeply into yourself. As I'm sure you will eagerly tell yourself that people like me love to throw the racist accusation around, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. You are literally the first. Congratulations.

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?

You are the theist crusader asking if evolution is true and if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? You are not acknowledging the past, which is what explains the present situation. You want black and white simple answers where nuance is called for. You bring up specific non-typical counter examples that do not represent the mean and then insist it invalidates the entire theory. In short, you ignore rational evidence because it makes you feel uncomfortable.

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?

It IS an introspective issue, because you are ignoring evidence and reason based on your personal feelings. Your point in the OP of this thread was lack of reasoning and failure of logic. You willingly point this out in others, but then point to an entire community of people and insist that they are more violent than another community, but you stop short there, on purpose, and do not acknowledge mitigating factors involved in communities of color. These mitigating factors should directly influence our response in how we deal with these problems. Yet, it hasn't because of people like you that believe that all things are equal, and so communities of color should be directly and morally responsible for their actions. Our courts recognize mitigating factors in individual cases, and for good reason. It only makes sense that mitigating factors should be considered in communities of color when someone like you wants to justify or recommend harsh punishment. This doesn't address the root problems that cause these issues. We already have more people in prison than any country on earth (including China) and most of those are people of color. Yet the problems remain. This alone is an indicator that other solutions are needed.
 
braces_for_impact said:
You attack an entire race or gender of people over and over again.

Only he doesn't. At least he hasn't in this thread. You think he does because you imply it into what you are reading. Look at his actual words and try to put your bias aside. Read it as if it isn't Derec writing it. What if a black person wrote the same thing? Would it be a self-hating black person? Or would they be talking about a crime problem, super predators, a gang problem, and calling out to keep us safe, including black people safe from such people?

You are fond of accusing people of non-white origin of a greater incidence of violent behavior (among other things). You want to leave it at that, directly or indirectly implying that people of color have a collective moral failing somehow, by virtue of their skin color. You haven't provided any explanation.

Actually, I've seen both him and Loren (unfairly slammed in another thread) provide explanations, and neither said it was due to the DNA of black people. There are many possible reasons, and likely it is a mixture of them. Poverty, historical racism, present day racism and lack of upward mobility, community influence, celebration of crime culture in popular music and movies, etc, are all factors that may and probably do play a role. Not giving a long essay about the reasons for a fact, doesn't make the fact untrue. Nor does it mean the person stating the fact favours one explanation over another. Lack of explanation doesn't equate to racism.

Now, as far as my biases are concerned, I do not suffer from white guilt. I am sure you think so, because it would allow you to easily dismiss my claims as another deluded liberal white guy with no substance to his arguments.

I believe you. You don't suffer from white guilt. You see racism as rampant (sometimes even where it isn't or is exagerated - your branding Derec a racist right at the start of your post is a good example) and you know you benefit from it. Derec sees less racism in the world (sometimes missing it or underestimating it) doesn't see himself benefiting much from it, and sees minorities actually benefiting from it in reverse (ie, quotas, affirmative action, etc - something you view differently). That doesn't make you a sufferer of white guilt, and it doesn't make him a racist. It makes you different people with different life experiences and biases.

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

Yet, it hasn't because of people like you that believe that all things are equal, and so communities of color should be directly and morally responsible for their actions. Our courts recognize mitigating factors in individual cases, and for good reason. It only makes sense that mitigating factors should be considered in communities of color when someone like you wants to justify or recommend harsh punishment.

You didn't answer his question. What is your solution? Are you advocating more lenient sentences for black super predators and gangsters as compared to white super predators and gangsters? Are you interested in mitigating factors of individuals, or are you using race as a proxy? With your long post full of adhoms against Derec here, you haven't given us any of your own ideas. Nor has he actually said what you accuse him of above.

Derec, do you hate black people? Do you judge them all as one? Are they all violent, or are many of them people who need to be protected from those who are violent, including violent white people? Are you advocating harsher sentences for black people than white people? Are poverty and living in disadvantaged areas partial explanations for why there is more black violence than white violence in America? Is the legacy of racism part of it too?

braces_for_impact and friends, see how easy it is to cut through these misperceptions read into the words of others? You can just ask them directly. And if they answer you, and you insist on your strawman over their actual position, and turn a thread into an attack on them instead of the topic they raised, then you become like the Christian fellow insisting that atheists don't actually exist, and we all believe in and hate God; Saying that because they need to believe it, because it keeps them from contemplating anything we actually say to them.
 
Hi Jolly and thanks for participating:
Only he doesn't. At least he hasn't in this thread. You think he does because you imply it into what you are reading. Look at his actual words and try to put your bias aside. Read it as if it isn't Derec writing it. What if a black person wrote the same thing? Would it be a self-hating black person? Or would they be talking about a crime problem, super predators, a gang problem, and calling out to keep us safe, including black people safe from such people?

I think we have an honest difference of opinion here. You see, often when I post I start out reading the forum on my mobile. Depending on how I'm browsing in my device, I often view the forum posts, but my device cuts off the poster's names. This started a few years ago when mobile browsing really sucked, and now on my newer device I don't have to view forum posts this way, but I often do anyway for the very reason you describe. I can decide whether I agree with a given post or not on it's own merits, not on who's making the post. This was one of those times. That being said, I will not disagree with you that when I call Derec a racist and misogynist, it is not based only on this thread. That is based on the entirety of his behavior exhibited in numerous posts over a long period of time here.

Frankly, if you disagree that he's either a racist or misogynist, I don't see how. Racism takes many forms, and it falls upon a spectrum. There's mild racism and KKK over the top style. Derec is not on the mild half of this spectrum in my opinion. I do personally find it disgusting and harmful. If you do not, then that's fine. He's often saying he calls it as he sees it. So do I. The only redeeming feature I see regarding his attitude towards women and minorities is that (to my knowledge) he doesn't act in public on them. Nevertheless, his feelings are so strong and some of his posts so full of anger (some might say obsessive) that I fail to see how it doesn't inform his actions in the real world.

Finally, although I appreciate your input to the discussion, I'm really not interested in debating someone who wishes to defend him personally.
 
Back
Top Bottom