Riots Racism FascismFollow

And I literally responded to you. Then you completely ignored my response and instead went off on some bizarre rant about other, unrelated things.

My entire point here is to point out that if a group of extremists, who maybe at their height made up like .1% of the population of the US, decides that a symbol means something entirely different than what a much larger percentage of the US population believes (probably closer to say 20% back in the mid 20th century), why are you allowing the fringe group's opinion to color your own? You're giving the fringe power when you do that.

I could make a supposition that perhaps the racial activists, as time went on, and signs of actual obvious racism declined steadily in our society, instead of taking that as a good thing, instead have proceeded to look even harder at anything that might be racism if viewed through enough convoluted steps so that they can continue to march to the same banner. So we suddenly have "institutional racism", and "systemic racism" (which apparently, is racism that can't be seen, nor can you find direct examples of it, but we just know it exists!), and symbols like the battle flag, which is overwhelmingly flown by people who don't see any racial connotation to it at all, now really means that those people are secretly racist, or support racism, or... well... something nefarious. We're sure of it!

And hey, white privilege, right? So even if you don't engage is racial discrimination, and you don't see where you've benefited from it, it doesn't matter because we just assume that you did, and you're complicit if you don't yourself give in to guilt over your unfairly gained advantages and "join the cause", or something. Um... Isn't this all a bit contrived and ridiculous? I think so.

We've institutionalized activism. And this is the result. When there's not enough enemy to fight, you have to create one. Otherwise, your army disbands and you lost power. That's what this is really about. And sorry, I'm not buying into it. It's a BS political narrative that has very very little to do with actually opposing racism and much more about creating artificial divisions in our society so that we can create conflicts and build support for "our side". It's not like this is a new concept.

I'm sorry that you're easily confused and it's hard for you to balance history and your insane spin about why carrying racist symbols of oppression and white supremacy is really okay if you just pretend real hard. It must be hard living inside your head.

No. You gave an example of someone using a racial slur towards someone being an indication that said person is a racist. That is *not* the same as waving a flag. It's pretty clear what someone means when they say "that guy is a lazy crackhead like all f'in N**ggers!" while referring to a black man. Not a lot of interpretation to make there, right? When someone waves a flag, you might think it means one thing, while the person waving the flag thinks it means something else.

You're literally ignoring the entire argument I'm making and just insisting that there is one and only one reason one might wave that flag. But if you'd stop and actually talk to people who do wave that flag, or have that flags symbol on mugs, bumper stickers, etc, you'll find that they see a very different meaning to it, that has nothing at all to do with racism or slavery or support for the Confederacy and its ideals.



A person isn't a flag though. As you said, people have many attributes, some may be externally subjective (ie: the opinion of others about that person), but many are going to be objective properties of that person (physical, emotional, intellectual, etc). Your point applies to the objective properties, but not to the subjective. You may hate someone for some personal reason, yet that same person may have friends, be married, have children who love them, etc. You would be pretty foolish to run around constantly wondering why these people can like that person who is clearly a horrible terrible person. I mean, you can do that, but you'd be wasting your own time doing so.

Similar deal with a flag, except it's 100% subjective opinion. It's symbol. That's all it can be. It's meaning is derived by the individual and what they believe that flag represents. You can have your opinion of its meaning, but just as you can't impose your own feelings of dislike for a person on other people, you can't impose your meaning for a flag on other people. You kinda have to accept that their reasons for flying a flag are their reasons and that they are honest reasons.

I mean, you could assume that they really secretly agree with you that it's a symbol of racism and slavery and are just pretending so as to pull one over on you or something. But that's as foolish as assuming that the guy you hate's wife and children and friends really secretly hate him just as much as you and are also just pretending to like/love him.

Um... That's you being really really stupid.



There's no homogeneous "rest of society" though. You're kinda assuming that everyone agrees with your interpretation, while that is clearly not the case.



All or nothing arguments are foolish. I already quite clearly stated that something can be both "offensive" in the legal meaning (meaning it can be barred from public and workplace view), while still being "art". My workplace can (and does) prohibit political speech while in the workplace (so no pro/anti politician or party signs on your door or walls kind of thing. It's all about comfortable workplaces. But that doesn't magically make political speech no longer "speech", right? Same deal here. Just because an image isn't appropriate or allowed in a public place, or at work, does not make it not art.

You're trying to shoehorn your own opinion onto everyone else. That's not a very useful approach to anything. You have a very odd way of thinking about things.

Voting Republican sends you straight to hell. #Biblefacts

Uh... That's the example you gave. You were comparing that to someone waving a flag. I was saying that they were not the same. WTF? Do you just forget what you said?



You're misunderstanding what I mean by "objective" vs "subjective". I'm talking about "things we can observe" versus "things we might speculate motivate the things we observe". Seeing someone help a little old lady cross the road is objective fact. It happened. We saw it. We might admire someone for doing so, especially if they have a pattern of that sort of behavior, right? Might even consider that person a "role model".

What we don't know is *why* that person does those things. We have to speculate as to that. We can't read that person's mind. That's my point here. The same applies to the examples of things we might view as racist. We can objectively observe the actions (using a racist slur, say). But we don't know the person's motivation or reason for doing so. However, in your example of someone using a racial slur, we can have a reasonable belief that said action (or even pattern of actions) is likely motivated by some sort of racial hatred, bigotry, and even racism.

Something like flying a flag is a step past that. We can only see that the person is flying that flag. And that action "objectively" has no direct effect. It's purely symbolic, unlike walking someone across the street, or calling someone a racial slur. We can only judge that action by the meaning it has to the person performing it. That's all. Hence my term "subjective". We would have to speculate.

Now yes, if that person also had a pattern of other behavior we associate with being racially bigoted, then we might conclude that for that person, waving the battle flag is likely motivated by some form of racial hatred. Again, we can't be sure, but it's a reasonable bet.

But what about all the people who don't have any pattern of racial hatred, bigotry, discrimination, etc, but who fly that same flag? We should maybe give them the benefit of the doubt that when they say that it's not a symbol of racism, that maybe they're being truthful?

Just a thought. You're trying to insist that you know better than the person themselves what they are thinking and what their motivations are for doing something. That's awfully egotistical of you, IMO.




Except you keep trying to argue that if other people want something barred from public view that it makes it not art. That's simply not true. I'm arguing that something absolutely can be art and also be something that our social mores don't allow to be displayed in public. For some bizarre reason you keep getting stuck on this. I'm not even sure why. It's a really dumb argument to make.

Edited, Aug 5th 2020 1:45pm by gbaji

This is fun conversation and all, but all you need to say is "You are defending a man who repeatedly raped children"..


Nothing else really matters, does it?

You have a hard time comprehending.

Something *not* inherently racist can be interpreted as such based on historical and social context. Stating someone's race is not racist. However, when done in an a certain manner, it can be interpreted as racist. It's not that difficult.

This is really not that difficult to understand. Notice the key term "overwhelmingly". This means most people will not consider it art, which most do not. Just because *you* consider it art, it does not outweigh society's interpretation.

To you. Unfortunately, when you live in a society, that's not how it works. Your interpretation does not outweigh what the society thinks as a whole.


So when the guy with the Mike Tyson face tattoo gets turned down a job because the employer says it's not professional, let me know if his personal interpretation of professionalism will outweigh the employer's.

He has been suspected of being a troll on at least a few occasions, iirc

NOPE.

I've met entirely too many "gbaji" types even in my relatively little city to accept this.


There are lots of people who just don't think... they just say what they are programmed to say.

Due to religion, or hardcore GOP family or whatever, they just regurgitate FOX or "prosperity" preachers or "end timer" preachers.


I do have to say, though: Trump does nicely fit the "False Prophet" narrative of scripture.

No, idiot.

What I'm saying is that YOU are not an outlier, just another useful idiot.

If you would just look past the narrative being forced down your throats by MSM, like I do, because in high school, I read the school paper, so I'm basically a professional newsman, you would see what I was talking about.


EDIT: Comma, not period. Anachronistic.


Edited, Aug 22nd 2020 1:01am by stupidmonkey

Correct. I suspect that my understanding of what is and isn't a fact is more correct than yours though.



No. That's not how science works. And this is the core of what I'm talking about. You, and many other people as well, tend to conflate the concept of "fact" with "conclusions". In science a fact is only something that can be observed and measured (and the "fact" is usually the result of some measurement). So "the temperature of the solution in this beaker is X degrees Celsius" is a fact. "The US population as of the last census is Y", is a fact. "The ppm of whatever in this solution of whatever" is a fact.

Facts never change. Period. They can't. That was the value you got when you measured the temperature, or counted the people, or calculated the ppm of something. That cannot change. We can factor in for bad measurements, of course, and often do. But that doesn't change the original fact that was obtained. It just replaces it with a new one.

Conclusions can change. Hypothesis can change. Theories can change. All change as the result of applying scientific method in some way, either with better tests or with new/better measurements which may cause the change. That you think that "facts" can change because of science shows the conflation that I mentioned earlier.



Correct. And yet, it's often the folks on your "side" of the political spectrum who constantly conflate those. Global Warming? A fact that can't be disputed. Trickle down economics doesn't work? Another "fact" that can't be disputed. Systemic racism? Another fact. Nearly the entire political ideology of the left is based on such "facts" that the acolytes of said "side" are expected to take at face value, never question, and shout down as "ignoring the science" anyone who disagrees.



Correct again. What you're missing is that you often do simply declare your opinion/position/conclusion as "true" and ignore any counter arguments that are made. How often do you hear conservatives support a position by claiming it's "accepted science"? It's usually the left who do this. And not because it is, but in order to claim that their position is the one accepted truth, and there can be no discussion or debate. That's an incredibly dangerous methodology to use IMO.



Uh huh. Because your "fact -> position" thinking goes in a loop. Hence your argument that my position is "the wrong position" is supported by "see 1.". You're in effect declaring that my position is not a "fact", and thus is untrue. But that's not how this works. My positions are based on facts, but they don't make anything become a fact. While no opinion or position is ever a fact, we should give greater weight to those that are backed up by fact then those which are not.

What facts have you brought to the table here?

Edited, Aug 25th 2020 3:35pm by gbaji