Machete of peace

[Derec]

I am not obliged to ignore someone's bullshit-artistry. Better to repeatedly point out why he's a bullshit monger in the hopes that someday it might sink in. At the very least, his bullshit doesn't go uncontested.

Neither does yours.

 

[4321lynx]

Because he makes fun of the crazy black dudes on the street preaching literal black supremacy, and that black people are descendants of Egyptian Pharaohs? Why?

People dont just say that to advance black supremacy. They say it to remind people that "Our 'race' is part of your history too." and not just in ways that are immediately obvious. (Slavery)

Does not change the fact that those making the claim of descent from the Pharaohs, or even the pre-felaheen of ancient Egypt, are either mistaken or lying.
Though the language used to state that is, I grant you, indicative of the leanings of the man making the statement.

 

[Derec]

Though the language used to state that is, I grant you, indicative of the leanings of the man making the statement.

The language is meant to ridicule, because their views are ridiculous. Just like it is ok to ridicule white supremacists, it should be ok to ridicule black supremacists. Down with double standards!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Nothing racist about it.

That particular sentence in that particular post indeed had nothing racist about it. What Derec did there is analogous to somebody arguing that IQ tests have western bias and then adding a line at the end that this would undercut the arguments of white supremacists. I doubt many here would call that racist.

Any prejudice in what Derec has said in this thread it has been against muslims or immigrants, and not against black people. At least not yet.

 

[Derec]

Any prejudice in what Derec has said in this thread it has been against muslims or immigrants,

Correction: against unlimited, unrestricted mass migration. I have nothing against immigrants or Muslims as individuals, but when you allow millions of Afghans, Pakistanis, Somalis etc. (all countries where very fundamentalist forms of Islam are shared by vast majority of the population) to immigrate with no restrictions and vetting, do not be surprised when many of them turn out to be fundamentalist Muslims incompatible with Western societies. Best case scenario they merely fail to integrate and do things like refuse to take taxi passengers who carry alcohol. Worst case scenario, they (try to) murder you, like the guy from OP or the Somali teenager who stabbed people or this guy in Minnesota last year.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Moreover, it is perfectly rational to be more concerned with dealing with a problem that causes more problems (i.e. racism and bigotry by whites towards non-whites) than one that causes less problems. Yet that explanation is rarely recognized in the cacophony of "Oh noes, life is so unfair to white men" bleats and whines.

You are not wrong that white racism has potential to do more harm, because more white people are in powerful positions to act on it than black people. Derec is not wrong that black racism gets more of a pass and is more tolerated by mainstream society. And the two feed directly into one another, because both are racism.

Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. All forms of racism should be fought against.

Indeed. Lets not be racist about racism.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am not obliged to ignore someone's bullshit-artistry. Better to repeatedly point out why he's a bullshit monger in the hopes that someday it might sink in. At the very least, his bullshit doesn't go uncontested.

Actually yeah, the "bullshit" does go uncontested when you fail to address it and instead derail to personal attacks on the "bullshiter" instead of contesting the "bullshit".

 

[laughing dog]

No it isn't. White racism/nationalism gets shunned

Not necessarily. President Trump's initial response to the events in Charlottesville (and his defenders here) are proof of that.

Al Sharpton is every bit as racist as David Duke,

I think that is hyperbole. A comparison of Duke's resume ( David_Duke) with Al Sharpton's ( Al_Sharpton) leads to the charitable assessment that your claim is hyperbolic rhetoric.

but imagine the outcry if Duke made millions doing a weekly show on FoxNews (Sharpton has a show on MSNBC, the left wing version of Fox) or a daily radio show on SiriusXM (like Shaprton does)?

Please show the evidence that Sharpton makes millions from MsNBC or SinusXM.

Maybe in the past, but not today.

Wrong. Ask Tamir Rice or Philandro Castile (oh, that's right, they cannot respond).

Even things like Charlottesville Nazis are fueled by the toxic identity politics that was cultivated for so long by black nationalists especially.

Nazis and Neo-nazis flourished long before black nationalists were even noticed, so it is ridiculous to try to blame Neo-nazis and white supremacists today on the behavior of black nationalists.

Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. All forms of racism should be fought against.

It is rational to prioritize efforts. But when you show the same zeal in dealing with the misbehavior of white bigots and its negative consequences as you do with the perceived injustices by black people, then you may begin to convince people that you actually believe your first sentence and that you are colorblind. But the content of your response indicates that time is still a long way off.

However, given the But when an example of black racism is brought up, you often get claims like "black people cant be racist" etc. Which in itself is a racist statement.

Your conclusion is truly debatable.

 

[bilby]

I am not obliged to ignore someone's bullshit-artistry. Better to repeatedly point out why he's a bullshit monger in the hopes that someday it might sink in. At the very least, his bullshit doesn't go uncontested.

Actually yeah, the "bullshit" does go uncontested when you fail to address it and instead derail to personal attacks on the "bullshiter" instead of contesting the "bullshit".

Not so.

To take a completely hypothetical example, imagine some poster (maybe on stormfront) posts the following:

All the Jews should be rounded up and shot, because they are responsible for killing Christ

Now, there are three responses that we could have to this:

1) A detailed rebuttal, that analyzes the meanings in the original statement (who was 'Christ'? did he even exist? Can today's Jews be held responsible for actions that occurred thousands of years ago? etc., etc.) - But who has time for that? This fucknuckle isn't going to read a long and detailed rebuttal, and he won't accept its conclusions even if he did read it.

2) Ignore him - This is your recommendation, and it certainly has some merit. BUT, we need to consider what effect it has on both the poster, and on third-party lurkers. They see that the post has gone unanswered, and may think 'Well, nobody is saying it's wrong, so perhaps he is right'.

3) Respond with a personal attack - "Oh, fucking stick your anti-Semitic crap up your arse you fascist wanker" or similar. Of course, that in no way rebuts what was originally posted; It doesn't form a counter argument. But it does indicate to the poster, and to lurkers, that the opinion originally expressed does not have universal (if grudging) support.

Of course, option 3 can ALSO constitute 'virtue signaling'; But that need not be its only (or even its main) purpose. Indeed, it is the reverse; it is signaling the lack of virtue that the original poster is demonstrating.

Sure, it would be nice if we lived in a world where reason and logic were always used in debate. But we don't; and so the well judged insult can be as useful (or even more useful) in advancing a case as a detailed rebuttal of an erroneous belief.

 

[ZiprHead]

Fourth rebuttal: Actually it was Italians (Romans) who crucified Jesus.

 

[bilby]

Fourth rebuttal: Actually it was Italians (Romans) who crucified Jesus.

That would be an example of option 1. I am not discussing possible rebuttals; I am having a meta-discussion about whether rebuttal is the best option.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That would be an example of option 1. I am not discussing possible rebuttals; I am having a meta-discussion about whether rebuttal is the best option.

I think it is a little different when the statement you are responding to is hateful and the very speech that you say brands them racist, etc.

It is a little different if the same person said "There aren't many black hockey players; most of them are white" and you respond with "Fuck you, racist asshole". This is more in line with what people routinely do to Derec on this board.

 

[Toni]

That would be an example of option 1. I am not discussing possible rebuttals; I am having a meta-discussion about whether rebuttal is the best option.

I think it is a little different when the statement you are responding to is hateful and the very speech that you say brands them racist, etc.

It is a little different if the same person said "There aren't many black hockey players; most of them are white" and you respond with "Fuck you, racist asshole". This is more in line with what people routinely do to Derec on this board.

If only Derec's posts were more along the lines of " There aren't many black hockey players; most of them are white."

 

[laughing dog]

That would be an example of option 1. I am not discussing possible rebuttals; I am having a meta-discussion about whether rebuttal is the best option.

I think it is a little different when the statement you are responding to is hateful and the very speech that you say brands them racist, etc.

It is a little different if the same person said "There aren't many black hockey players; most of them are white" and you respond with "Fuck you, racist asshole". This is more in line with what people routinely do to Derec on this board.

No, it is not. But it is telling you have to resort to such gross mischaracterizations.