-->
@RationalMadman
However seeing 8 upvotes on some rude remarks...
Who cares how many upvotes a comment gets ?
It literally costs you NOTHING.
At what point is it far enough for you right-wing nutjobs to call it racist and too far?
Posts
Total:
199
-->
@DebateArt.com
@RationalMadman
Even on this website alone, when I block and ignore bullies, I still get taunted even for that ignoring. This is the truth. Ignoring sometimes works but isn't always optimal at all, it depends on the bully and scenario.
I've suggested @DebateArt.com add a "HIDE" feature that automatically HIDES all posts and comments made by people you've BLOCKED.
Or at least make the BLOCK automatically also block you from mentioning and or replying directly to the people you've blocked.
They seemed to think this was a good idea, but may be a bit technical for them to implement with the current architecture.
-->
@3RU7AL
I think that's a great idea. I'm currently pressed for time, but whenever time permits me to be on the site, i'd rather not see posts I've elected to ignore. That said, I guess you could add a second feature that allows you to see what "Hide" posters are writing about. Sometimes, I want my freedom to quote/tag "Hide" users without unnecessarily antagonizing them since they don't know that I've effectively "hide" them permanently.
Now that I'm thinking about this, I think the subscription function is underwhelming. i want notifications on the users that I've subscribed because I want to read each of their public posts. I know the site is free but I think it's a bit annoying to manually browse someone's profile just to check where their recent posts were published. I think the novel aspect of the subscription button is to be a fan of someone. Currently, I feel nothing whenever I click subscribe.
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I think that's a great idea. I'm currently pressed for time, but whenever time permits me to be on the site, i'd rather not see posts I've elected to ignore. That said, I guess you could add a second feature that allows you to see what "Hide" posters are writing about. Sometimes, I want my freedom to quote/tag "Hide" users without unnecessarily antagonizing them since they won't know that I've effectively "hide" them permanently.
Are you saying you'd like the option to HIDE all posts from particular users, but without technically BLOCKING them from responding to you (and without HIDING your posts from them) ?
A mutual HIDE & BLOCK function seems like a simple solution to the "restraining order" problem that somewhat shockingly seems to be a reoccurring problem here.
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you saying you'd like the option to HIDE all posts from particular users, but without technically BLOCKING them from responding to you (and without HIDING your posts from them) ?
Yes, yes and yes. I want another button that allows me to temporarily see their "hide" replies, because in some cases, I might be curious. I'll determine whether their replies are worth my time. If they're not, then I won't bother reading. I'll simply move on with my life without sparing a single thought about them. For example, I had a recent nasty exchange in the religious forum with another muslim arab. All things considered, I wouldn't want him to stop spreading what he believes in but if I'm continually going to be personally attacked by him, Id rather not give him time. I'd rather "hide" him.
A mutual HIDE & BLOCK function seems like a simple solution to the "restraining order" problem that somewhat shockingly seems to be a reoccurring problem here.
I haven't been reading those ROs so I've no comment.
next thing you know conservatives are gonna start saying doxxing someone is free speech
-->
@drlebronski
What is doxing?
-->
@TheUnderdog
Giving out someones name, adresss, phone number, etc etc with 0ut their consent or knowledge
-->
@drlebronski
Dicing is bad, but the first amendment protects merely the right to state opinions. Doxing isn’t opinions, so the person who did it should be tried for theft.
"At what point is it far enough for you right-wing nutjobs to call it racist and too far?" Is this supposed to promote intellectually honest dialogue? All this does is make me hate all of humanity and hope an asteroid wipes every living human being of the face of the planet.
-->
@drlebronski
next thing you know conservatives are gonna start saying doxxing someone is free speech
How is it not free-speech, I mean, you know, exactly.
-->
@sadolite
Is this supposed to promote intellectually honest dialogue?
Next sentence after this:
All this does is make me hate all of humanity and hope an asteroid wipes every living human being of the face of the planet.
Real intellectually honest insight. I do hope you seek therapy to stop wishing/hoping for this though, genuinely.
-->
@RationalMadman
Why do you think Fox News likes to put angry black people on the air making accusations of racism? It's not because their viewers like it. It's because their viewers hate it. This generates greater interest and causes their viewers to become more interested in the news. This leads to greater viewership and greater advertising revenue.
In permitting hate speech, perhaps this site is doing something similar.
For the title, Black people retaliating, I suppose.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Not at all. Speedrace retaliated against Wylted and Wylted called it mod abuse.
Racism can be stopped by members of other races than the victims. Only a racist would think otherwise.
-->
@ILikePie5
Cause once they realize their shit isn’t working they won’t take the effort to do so.
Or you can do this
Go the gym
Start doing boxing
become a pro boxer
Beat bully up
-->
@RationalMadman
You'd be surprised how many immigrants voted for Trump. My dad is a Greek immigrant, voted for Trump. In fact, the Cuban population in Cuba is what won Trump over in Florida.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you think that believing in systemic racism and/or that, on average, black people are worse off than white people is necessarily racist?
-->
@Username
That depends on how you define systemic racism. Can you point to a law that is explicitly racist?
Do you believe that policies like Affirmative Action that give preference based on skin color are justified because of racial disparities?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
No, and probably.
-->
@Username
Would you say that the following claim is racist?
Black people are, on average, less intelligent, poorer, less qualified for skilled jobs, more obese, do more drugs, and commit more crimes than white people, and there is nothing they can do in the current system to change those inevitable outcomes.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Keep in mind I'm only making statements about the US in this post.
There are a lot of claims there. The claim that black people are less intelligent is complicated because I get the impression that there's a lot the scientific community is uncertain about regarding the existence of intelligence and our ability to calculate it. If you take the view that intelligence is determined by IQ, the tests are completely unbiased, and don't have any significant problems (which I am skeptical of), then black people are less intelligent on average. That is not necessarily a racist claim (but it could be). If you believe that these racial differences in intelligence are determined by genetics, that is a racist claim.
The poorer claim is, to my knowledge, descriptively true and is not racist unless you intended it or implied it to be.
I don't know enough about the qualifications claim to make a statement that I would be confident about concerning it's truth-value. I would guess that the claim is not necessarily racist unless it had racist implications, intentions, etc.
The obesity claim is also, to my knowledge, descriptively true. It's not necessarily racist but could be depending on the context in which you said it.
I don't know if the drugs claim is true. Once again I think whether it's racist depends on the context.
The crimes claim is probably true to an extent and is not necessarily racist.
The claim that black people as a group cannot do anything to change their outcomes in the current system is not true IMO. I guess there are some critical viewpoints that would take a pessimistic view towards the future of African-Americans in the US as a state (Afro-pessimism, I think) and I doubt that that is racist. I think that whether the claim is racist or not also would probably depend on the context, but I imagine there are many situations where that claim would be racist.
-->
@Username
Qualifiers:
"less intelligent"
I am not referring to the capacity to learn new information, but rather acquired skills typically learned in education. This would include areas such as proficiency in reading, writing, math, and critical thinking. It is often claimed that inequitable access to government dollars in public education results in lower proficiency in those areas.
"less qualified for skilled jobs"
This would typically be the result of lower intelligence (as I have just qualified it), as well as being unable to go to college for various reasons.
"do more drugs"
I have seen this claim often, but would be more accurately stated, "more likely to do drugs," rather than the current phrasing. But we can leave that one out for the sake of the argument.
An added qualifier--
Here is a description of systemic racism:
Harris said systemic racism creates disparities in many "success indicators" including wealth, the criminal justice system, employment, housing, health care, politics and education.
SOURCE: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5343549002
So systemic racism "creates" racial disparities as a necessary outcome. The incomes may vary between individuals or localized populations. But as an entire group, these disparities will continue under the current system. So let me rephrase the statement slightly with those qualifiers.
Black people are, on average, less intelligent, poorer, less qualified for skilled jobs, more obese, and commit more crimes than white people, and those disparities will continue to characterize back people as an entire group if the system continues as it is.
The key factor is that black people are unable to overcome racial disparities as an entire group as a necessary outcome. Systemic racism "creates" those results. If black people could overcome their disparities and surpass white people in those areas, it could no longer be said that systemic racism exists. That is Critical Race Theory.
Would you now say the claim is racist?
-->
@Vader
You'd be surprised how many immigrants voted for Trump
Yes I would, since they're all conned.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I am not referring to the capacity to learn new information, but rather acquired skills typically learned in education. This would include areas such as proficiency in reading, writing, math, and critical thinking. It is often claimed that inequitable access to government dollars in public education results in lower proficiency in those areas.
I don't know if that's what intelligence means. If that's what you're referring to, that's fine, but you may not be referring to intelligence.
This would typically be the result of lower intelligence (as I have just qualified it), as well as being unable to go to college for various reasons.
Maybe that's the case. I'm not sure.
Black people are, on average, less intelligent, poorer, less qualified for skilled jobs, more obese, and commit more crimes than white people, and those disparities will continue to characterize back people as an entire group if the system continues as it is.
I don't know what you mean by "the system". I think there are many systems and institutions in the country. Systemic racism can occur in any one of them.
I think the bulk of your argument(s) are like this: QB of team A (hereafter QB-A and TA) is causing Team B (TB) to lose. Therefore, QB-A causes TB to lose as a necessary outcome. If TB starts winning or losing less, than QB-A must have lost his skill. The second and third sentences are non-sequiturs from the first.
(QB-A = Systemic racism and TB = Black Americans)
Would you now say the claim is racist?
Once again, you're talking about multiple claims. This is an important distinction.
-->
@Username
I don't know what you mean by "the system". I think there are many systems and institutions in the country. Systemic racism can occur in any one of them.
I am referencing a single system to refer to all systems within the context of the U.S.
I think the bulk of your argument(s) are like this: QB of team A (hereafter QB-A and TA) is causing Team B (TB) to lose. Therefore, QB-A causes TB to lose as a necessary outcome. If TB starts winning or losing less, than QB-A must have lost his skill. The second and third sentences are non-sequiturs from the first.
The analogy doesn't work because of the non-sequiturs. As I showed from the quote in my last post, which is consistent with CRT, systemic racism causes disparities. That is the evidence and proof of it. If I asked you to prove systemic racism exists, how would you do it? You can't point to an explicit example, so you have to find disparities, and then find a supposed cause of the disparity. Would you prove systemic racism exists today using another means?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Systemic racism by-enlarge causes disparities to some degree. How much of a disparity there is is heavily dependent on the extent of systemic racism and other factors. Meaning that systemic racism contributes to the current problems with Black Americans, but it doesn't condemn them to a certain rate of crime, obesity, poverty, etc.
If your claim is that as long as there is systemic racism there will be some disparity, that's probably true.
-->
@Username
But the narrative is that systemic racism is woven into the very fabric of American society. The systems were created with the intention of benefitting white people, and will continue to do so. So until the systems are torn down and rebuilt, systemic racism will exist to benefit white people. And the disparities will continue and there is nothing that black people, as a group, can do to overcome those disparities as long as all those systems are in place.
That means that black people will continue to fall on the short end of those disparities compared to white people until America is deconstructed.
That means that black people will continue to fall on the short end of those disparities compared to white people until America is deconstructed.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I don't know nearly enough to comment on that narrative. I think a lot of people just take systemic racism to be some kind of racial discrimination or something like that which occurs on the level of any system or institution. Just because there's a racial disproportionality that stems from a system doesn't mean that we have to tear it all down.
-->
@Username
Just because there's a racial disproportionality that stems from a system doesn't mean that we have to tear it all down.
You may not think so, but the ideology that is driving the current narrative about systemic racism disagrees with you.