Racism and the Internet

[GhostWriter16]

Nobody does a reduction to absurdity quite like you.

Speaking isn't an additional threat.

Also, I believe with Great Power (To bear arms) comes great responsibility (To use them legally.) If you commit armed robbery and so blatantly misuse your right to bear arms you should be executed.

 

[JollyRoger]

Speaking isn't an additional threat.

Sure it is. I can communicate with my fellow robbers in a way that enhances the success of the crime. If I say "Give me the money or your son tied to the chair will be killed", then you are more likely to give me the money.

Also, I believe with Great Power (To bear arms) comes great responsibility (To use them legally.) If you commit armed robbery and so blatantly misuse your right to bear arms you should be executed.

Yet the text of the Constitution doesn't address this. It just says the right shall not be infringed. If you want infringement, there is a method to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, the actual text should rule, right?

 

[Cheetah]

You just contradicted yourself in the same paragraph.

Um... Am I failing English or something? How is that a contradiction?

 

[JollyRoger]

Um... Am I failing English or something? How is that a contradiction?

Scolding=confrontation

 

[GhostWriter16]

Sure it is. I can communicate with my fellow robbers in a way that enhances the success of the crime. If I say "Give me the money or your son tied to the chair will be killed", then you are more likely to give me the money.

Well than that should be an aggravating factor.

Yet the text of the Constitution doesn't address this. It just says the right shall not be infringed. If you want infringement, there is a method to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, the actual text should rule, right?

Your rights end where mine begin...

You do not have a right to steal from me.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well than that should be an aggravating factor.

Really? So someone able to pull off a theft without speaking should get a lesser punishment?

Your rights end where mine begin...

You do not have a right to steal from me.

There is already criminal punishment for stealing from you. No need to add punishment for exercising a Constitutional right.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Really? So someone able to pull off a theft without speaking should get a lesser punishment?

Speaking =/= threatening to kill.

There is already criminal punishment for stealing from you. No need to add punishment for exercising a Constitutional right.

Pointing a gun at someone is not a constitutionally defensible activity.

Goodbye

 

[JollyRoger]

Speaking =/= threatening to kill.

Ok, what if my speech is to warn a fellow robber that someone is about to hit him from behind? Should the punishment be enhanced?

Pointing a gun at someone is not a constitutionally defensible activity.

Really? What good is the 2nd Amendment if you can't point your gun at someone? If you aggressively step onto my property uninvited, then you are going to get a gun pointed at you.

 

[Cheetah]

Scolding=confrontation

I disagree.

Scolding may be confronting, but it is done from a implicit morally higher ground, and can just as easily be seen as "punishment".

From dictionary.com:

scolding:
the action of a person who scolds; a rebuke; reproof: I got a scolding for being late again.

scold:
1.
to find fault with angrily; chide; reprimand: The teacher scolded me for being late.
2.
to find fault; reprove.
3.
to use abusive language.
4.
a person who is constantly scolding, often with loud and abusive speech.

What I intended to say was that I prefer people have discussions and civil confrontations, as opposed to angrily and/or abusively reprimanding people with non-PC views.

 

[JollyRoger]

If you want thought to come out freely, then why take one form of expression of the table based on implicities?

 

[Cheetah]

If you want thought to come out freely, then why take one form of expression of the table based on implicities?

Because it limits free discussion. If I play Rammstein at 150dB every time you talk to express myself, there wouldn't be much of a discussion, would there?

To put it in another way: As far as I understand the rules of CFC, the way I understand 'scolding', it would not be allowed here.

 

[Hygro]

I disagree.

Scolding may be confronting, but it is done from a implicit morally higher ground, and can just as easily be seen as "punishment".

From dictionary.com:

scolding:
the action of a person who scolds; a rebuke; reproof: I got a scolding for being late again.

scold:
1.
to find fault with angrily; chide; reprimand: The teacher scolded me for being late.
2.
to find fault; reprove.
3.
to use abusive language.
4.
a person who is constantly scolding, often with loud and abusive speech.

What I intended to say was that I prefer people have discussions and civil confrontations, as opposed to angrily and/or abusively reprimanding people with non-PC views.

Confrontation connotates something more aggressive than your usage. Either way, your argument is that we should treat racism with intellectual respect, like a flawed train of logic that needs fixing. You argue that people should be made safe to openly share and promote racism without fear of social retribution, so that we may discuss the demerits of racism. No matter how nobly intended, I think that that is a terrible idea. Racism is a fire. Starve it of oxygen, and spray it aggressively with water if it ignites. Racism is not rational, even when controlled through reasoned ideology. Racism is emotional, and dangerous. It should be treated as emotional and dangerous. People should be as afraid to be a racist as much as they are afraid of being engulfed in a furnace. And that takes "scolding".

 

[Masada]

black powa

 

[El_Machinae]

Case as presented:
-2 black girls sentenced to long prison sentences for stealing 11 dollars. Would white girls ever get this punishment?? Oh the horror.

Case as happened:
-The robbery was at gunpoint, the victims were also black as was at least half the jury. No evidence whatsoever of racism.

Well, disregarding the influence a jury has on sentencing ....
I think it's important to point out that blacks tend to be racist towards blacks, as well. Anti-black racism is fairly ubiquitous amongst American society, regardless of the criteria by which we select the people being tested. White people tend to be racist against blacks over whites. Black people tend to be racist towards blacks. Women tend to be racist against blacks. Men tend to be racist. Old, young, rich, poor.

The idea that 'blacks cannot discriminate against blacks' would be an a priori assumption worth chucking. Suggesting that 'it's not racism if blacks did it' would be a fallacy, right off the bat.





It's amazing which posters missed this fallacy. Well, not 'amazing'. More 'expected'.

 

[Patroklos]

Thats the problem though. If everyone, regardless of class/sex/race is discriminating in the same fashion is that because of racism or because they all came to a valid consensus? Not to say they are not discriminating, but is it race that they are basing their discrimination on.

And is it really black they are seeing, or are they picking up on other cues? If I take a black man in a hoody and baggy jeans and then dress him in a suit and tie do I get the same reactions?

 

[Xanikk999]

And is it really black they are seeing, or are they picking up on other cues? If I take a black man in a hoody and baggy jeans and then dress him in a suit and tie do I get the same reactions?

No i don't think its the black that they are seeing. Its not racist to stereotype against a bunch of thuggish looking people in thuggish clothing, i have seen whites dressed that way also.

I have witnessed many times where someone is accused of being racist by blacks because they are judging hooligan looking characters.

So who's more racist? The person throwing around the racist accusations or the person concerned about a thuggish group of characters approaching them?

My moneys on the first person. People tend to make race an issue when it is not the main issue at all in today's society.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The robbery was at gunpoint, the victims were also black as was at least half the jury. No evidence whatsoever of racism.

The jury doesn't impose the sentence. The judge does based on the state laws.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think it's important to point out that blacks tend to be racist towards blacks, as well.

Lolwat?

 

[El_Machinae]

Thats the problem though. If everyone, regardless of class/sex/race is discriminating in the same fashion is that because of racism or because they all came to a valid consensus? Not to say they are not discriminating, but is it race that they are basing their discrimination on.

And is it really black they are seeing, or are they picking up on other cues? If I take a black man in a hoody and baggy jeans and then dress him in a suit and tie do I get the same reactions?

Well, I think that there are other variable by which we discriminate. We're more nervous of teens than old people. We assume people in nice clothes are more likely to behave civilly.

When I say that almost all groups are racist against blacks, that's what I mean. I mean, if a person is black, they're more likely to be 'assumed against' than a non-black person. People have a negative impression of black people, and this colors the way that people are treated.

 

[spryllino]

People in nice clothes are more likely to behave civilly because wearing nice clothes is like inviting people to be civil towards you. Why else would you wear nice clothes in most circumstances?