new page pls

Really? I think dereds is saying that provocation should not be taken into account in assessing Bruce instead of:

That's different to

Provocation doesn't change the assessment of Bruce's posts but when assessing Bruce's character then you have to take into account the 15+ years as well as the fact that he could be provoked into making bad posts for a relatively short period.

Are we allowed to use the unprovoked bad posts made over the span of years to assess character?

you're even allowed to use your interpretation of those posts to assess his character.

Do you really expect for me to fall for you trying to lead the conversation without ever answering any questions? Especially when you're not even good at employing this technique? Go back to troll school, son.

Here's another question for you.

Do you accept the statistical fact that blacks are stopped by police more than whites?

If your answer is yes, you have just accepted the entire premise of white privilege.

Argumentative insinuation and just asking.

Besides to have already cherry picked and applied mockery/ derision to form opinions quite freely, so why do think you need to ask permission for anything like that now?

I'm still curious if you can articulate why discussing ideas is immoral. How does discussing ideas justify demand for apologies and public political activity?

Amazing to realize that he was a mod for 15 years. Tragically, he was only a month away from getting one of those 2+2 mugs.

Amazing to learn this place has been around for 15 years.

15+ years at 2+2 I believe so he may be okay.

Only 4 more years to go for me as a mere pleb - do I get a 2+2 mug or is that just mods? I wonder what page we will be on by then.

Oh but they do. They benefit when a cop drives by and doesn't give them a second look because they're white. Being stopped by cops is a pita. Huge benefit imo.

Funny problem to want to solve. I wonder why the falsely accused take such issue if the accusation is false, and the accused is not actually racist. I can guess why the one's who are accurately accused take offense, few like being called out on their antisocial ways. There's also a "thou doth protest too much" vibe from the guilty imo. If a kind, polite person was accused of being a rude thief and a bad person, I'd like to think they could pause, look at themselves from a bird's eye view, and say to themselves "no I'm not. I'm polite, I don't steal, and I try to treat others with respect. This accuser is out to lunch" and move on (and be wary of the accuser.) When the accusations touch a nerve is when **** often hits the fan. Just my ramblings....

I'm starting with the assumption that Wookie is a reasonably kind, reasonably moral, common good person. I don't get an aspd vibe from him. You're clearly starting with a different opinion of him. So with that said, there's not much to understand. The vast majority of reasonably kind, reasonably moral, common good people take offense to antisocial behaviour and given the option would prefer that those who engage in such behaviour are not in a position of authority.

This guy. This guy's funny.

This thread has like three separate hall of fame "This is what I think smart looks like" performances and will be the subject of somebody's thesis paper in 20 years.

Not for nothing, but we aren't actually talking about current events itt, lol.

Oro, false accusation is anti social behavior. Which is why it is easy for me to believe I have a social responsible to take moral accusation seriously and question it for articulation.

I am under the impression that "whiteness studies" has been on the wane in most Universities.

First off, you keep calling it a cross post. It was just a quote. Tom quoted Bruce's posts. He also linked to them.


Secondly, the question and first line(are these the "missing bits"?) didn't change anything, anyway.

We can tell, because people who read them still thought Bruce was racist as ****. Bruce responded right away, if those lines changed the offensiveness of the posts tomdemaine would've been the guy demodded, Bruce would've been redeemed.



Attributing ANY position to you requires such immense effort on the part of your reader that they should be congratulated for trying, chez. But it goes without saying I have no ****ing idea what you're talking about? Which false position did I made up for you and call you a hypocrite about?

This guy wasn't a super profilic poster so I wasn't real familiar with his work, but he has lowkey been the MVP of this thread, and really the whole fiasco

Could not let this one go...so this is my last last post.

The problem is, your and other peoples question(s) are based on logical fallacies, false premises and stereotypes.

Do you accept the statistical fact that some whites are stopped more than some blacks?

If you answer yes, I've just effectively refuted your little "concept" and the purported "fact".

No, answering yes does not destroy the concept under any reasonable understanding. Averages are real things that can be compared even if the average is not exactly equal to every member in the set.

The premise of this question is flawed. Its not a statistical fact that black people are stopped more than white people because we know some whites are stopped more than some blacks. Its a statistical fact that black's are stopped disproportionately more than whites, or on average they are stopped more.

Your whole issue is that I didn't explicitly say " On average, blacks are stopped by cops more frequently than whites," instead of, "blacks are stopped more frequently than whites," even though virtually every native English speaker understands implicitly that I am referring to an average of individuals rather than making an absolute statement about every individual in each group?

Mother****er can't even count to one right and is lecturing on statistical facts.

When one of your proponents says "all whites have white privilege", then another furthers this fascination with absolutes with invalid "statistical facts" then yet their rabble master says "oh your mad I was not specific", its very telling.

The problem is proponents operate under generalities and absolutes while passing them off as facts, then want to pretend I'm the one with the problem. Get over yourself.

"whites are privileged". If you refute this concept or do not acknowledge your privilege, your racist here or an idiot. So, yes, being absolutely clear is important because you and others are perpetuating widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of white people and black people.

Next on the docket, I expect braves to go through my poker posts, finding any instance where I told a noob to raise his aces preflop because it's the best hand so braves can tell me about the time his aces got cracked.

3 > 1 FYI. Promises were made.