[RD] Berkeley Riots

[BvBPL]

His beef isn't with violence; it's about free speech.

My beef is about violence. That I agree with Holiday on the folly of violence for political ends doesn't mean I agree with him on all things.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Most people who know my post history on this forum know I openly mock political correctness. This guy is more than politically incorrect. He is straight up in racist territory.

edit: I'll also add that someone who says "I don't like black people" as you did in the punch a Nazi thread. If someone thinks "not liking black people" isn't racist, then it wouldn't' surprise me that they don't think Milo is racist either. With all due respect.

Yeah but I wasn't serious was I? You'd have to be rather blinkered and/or ignorant of the concepts of mockery and satire to think I was being serious there. So to me that demonstrates your judgement is rather impaired anyway. With all due respect.

 

[caketastydelish]

Yeah but I wasn't serious was I? You'd have to be rather blinkered and/or ignorant of the concepts of mockery and satire to think I was being serious there. So to me that demonstrates your judgement is rather impaired anyway. With all due respect.

In that case your 'satire' was in very poor taste. You could have used something else that wasn't related to race.

 

[Lexicus]

You say this like I have been habitually and intentionally dishonest on here.

Meh, I just mean that there's no way to really verify anything anyone says about themselves in a forum like this. Given this I assume that lying for debate advantage is fairly common.

It was the positioning, context, and overall tone that led me to take offense at what Traitorfish posted. He structured the post, whether intentionally or not, in a way that implied I have no clue what I'm talking about and that I have no perspective on the matter, so my statements on the matter should just be dismissed. Just think if a poster here did that to you. You'd feel pretty insulted as well.

I read what Tfish wrote, and I have to tell you I didn't detect this at all. I don't think he was coming at you specifically like this. He can speak for himself I suppose but I don't see anything in his post that would indicate this was his intention.
I, by the way, have been told in no uncertain terms by posters on this forum and elsewhere on the internet that I have no clue what I'm talking about and my perspective is completely invalid. This doesn't offend me because there are two basic possibilities. The first is that it's coming from someone I have profound disagreements with, in which case I'm unlikely to take anything they say on the disagreed-over issue particularly seriously. The second is that it's coming from someone I respect, someone who knows what they are talking about, in which case it's likely that my perspective really is worthless due to my ignorance of an issue - taking offense under either of these circumstances just seems pointless to me.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

In that case your 'satire' was in very poor taste. You could have used something else that wasn't related to race.

Whether you think it was in poor taste or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not it was serious. Taste is subjective so you'd be silly to make any objective inferences solely from that. Plus you're kind of missing the entire point that it was supposed to be offensive, as a means of highlighting why I found the original statment it was satirising to be offensive.

 

[metalhead]

If you're going to post something offensive in order to be provocative, you should ensure that it is on point. When you post something intentionally offensive that is both sophomoric and off-topic, it tends to have the effect of causing offense without the provocation you were going for.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If you're going to post something offensive in order to be provocative, you should ensure that it is on point. When you post something intentionally offensive that is both sophomoric and off-topic, it tends to have the effect of causing offense without the provocation you were going for.

It wasn't to be "provocative" it was to make a point. Yes, I know some people are so triggered by the word "black" that they are incabale of looking past that to any actual meaning, but that doesn't mean I have to cater towards those people.

However, this was all discussed pages and pages ago (possibly not even in this thread) and isn't the current point. The current point is the statement that I actually in all seriousness hate black people, which is a false statement that I was correcting. You may now go about your business.

 

[metalhead]

The problem was that the statement was silly, and hence offensive for no reason. The problem isn't that people are triggered by the word "black," it's that your statement was dumb and your point clumsily made, at best. But keep blaming the readers for that if it makes you feel better.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The problem was that the statement was silly, and hence offensive for no reason. The problem isn't that people are triggered by the word "black," it's that your statement was dumb and your point clumsily made, at best. But keep blaming the readers for that if it makes you feel better.

Completely irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that it was a satirical and not a serious comment. This statment is objectively true, no discussion required. PM me if you want to discuss further how the statement subjectively affected you, I'm not going to derail the thread to go over old ground that I've already covered multiple times.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Completely irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that it was a satirical and not a serious comment. This statment is objectively true, no discussion required. PM me if you want to discuss further how the statement subjectively affected you, I'm not going to derail the thread to go over old ground that I've already covered multiple times.

Probably wise, since most old ground that you "already covered" you have previously been buried in.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Probably wise, since most old ground that you "already covered" you have previously been buried in.

Only to the eyes of insane idealogues, which we seem to have far too many of around here.

You're certainly correct that it's "probably wise" though, for the reasons already mentioned (i.e. absolutely nothing to do with anything currently under discussion)

 

[Farm Boy]

Given this I assume that lying for debate advantage is fairly common.

I'm starting to pick up on that. If true, it makes the entire exercise garbage. If untrue, but assumed, it makes the entire excercise garbage.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm starting to pick up on that. If true, it makes the entire exercise garbage.

To an extent, you're right, but I don't think it's entirely garbage. I try to avoid making arguments that hinge on personal experience or other unverifiable information, and I try to get other people to do the same.

More likely than outright lying is just bog-standard confirmation bias. People's personal experience can't really be trusted because human memory is not reliable in general, and becomes even more unreliable when it comes to arguments about ideas and ideologies that people may have big emotional investments in.

 

[Farm Boy]

Then why engage individuals in conversation in the first place? You've come to them for thier varied experiences. It's one of the reasons this board, being relatively international(by my experiences, yes) if preponderously American, is so cool. If I want to read studies I'll read studies. Which, for the record, I would be wary of taking at face value by default as well. It's not like people become more honest the higher their education/intelligence is. They just get better at the game. Though admittedly sometimes people link really cool ones to read here.

 

[Hygro]

I'm starting to pick up on that. If true, it makes the entire exercise garbage. If untrue, but assumed, it makes the entire excercise garbage.

No one I've met from CFC has been misrepresenting themselves as far as I know. The same goes for DJForums.

More common is people believing in the first verisimilitudenous thing they think that makes them stand out.

In otherwords, some kids be confused about the limits of their knowledge and value of their conviction. End up peddling trash.

 

[Kyriakos]

Going from some black comedians, the view that black people cannot be termed as racist due to not being the privileged group, is somewhat common. While obviously they were historically treated as second-class citizens in the US, the analogous was true for many nationalities in other countries, and in Europe all of those were white. If people actually want to be "politically correct", "white" isn't the term to use when you mean a specific country and people there. US isn't the entire planet, and this microcosm in which it is probably is a significant part of such issues.
And while it was some white people in the US who kept black people down, that isn't logically translating to today saying that "white people keep us down". The huge majority of "whites" there obviously has neither economic power nor much of a say in what is happening.
Being racist isn't defined as being in power to cause harm to someone you dislike due to race; it just means you judge people due to their race. So black people - like everyone else- can be racist.

 

[aelf]

My beef is about violence. That I agree with Holiday on the folly of violence for political ends doesn't mean I agree with him on all things.

Then you used the wrong argument to support your position because his argument applies to the protesters, both violent and non-violent.

Also, I think your position on non-violence is unrealistic, as you disagree only with violent protests in a real-world context where protests are liable to result in violence.

 

[OranHarken]

Non-citizens don't have the right to be there. Outing undocumented students is the law. The Obama days of ignoring the laws he didn't like are over. Secede from the Union if you don't like it.

 

[sophie]

Non-citizens don't have the right to be there. Outing undocumented students is the law. The Obama days of ignoring the laws he didn't like are over. Secede from the Union if you don't like it.

kay.

 

[Hygro]

Non-citizens don't have the right to be there. Outing undocumented students is the law. The Obama days of ignoring the laws he didn't like are over. Secede from the Union if you don't like it.

Those are not the rules of the University of California.