Bruce could invest the entire rest of his life into feeding children in Africa as penance and this crowd would claim it's insufficient. They're here to laugh at you, not have a serious conversation.

You gotta take it a few steps further than that. The people who have chosen to assert infallibility and use this topic for entertainment cannot make themselves look good from it no matter how many kicks they get. As a topic on the whole, they leave out facts and resort to games, and in an open discussion which can persist despite their behavior they are at a huge disadvantage that even having an illusion of popularity and authority doesn't compensate for it.

Note how the subject, having exhausted every possible angle in an attempt to deny racism exists, has transitioned to admitting it exists (or at least agreeing to this ABSURD HYPOTHETICAL) but that there's no easy solution, so please stop talking about it because it makes him sad or something.

In regards to what specifically are the non-apologists at "a huge disadvantage"?

Diminishing a persons attributes and behaviors in order to amplify their other mistakes is not a winning argument, and is a lousy way to treat people- unless everybody shuts up about it and plays along pretending politics is a honest way to deal with inter-personal conflicts. It is a weak and contentious position and those qualities are at a disadvantage to ideas of better quality and ideas which are supportable well beyond mere personal diminishment, and a viewpoint of events which is more accurate.

I'm confused how there must obviously have been an apology posted but no one can quote it. Even more confusing is how those that can't produce this evidence are asserting others are lying and distorting facts.

They learned that trick from David Irving and other holocaust deniers.

That was good.

Around here, if one party is a moral imbecile, why is it the other party's responsibility to have a serious, calm conversation with them about their imbecility? Maybe there's an upside, but it just seems like "mature" conversations with these types about their views and opinions has a way of legitimizing their ignorance. Do you think they should be treated with kid-gloves?

So, you acknowledge that their motivation is entertainment, yet you think these other things that have nothing to do with their entertainment matter to them? There's some merit to confronting them in regular Politics where someone might get clued in (which is, of course, why calling people trolls is against the rules there), but in Unchained, anyone who doesn't know at this point is in too much denial to be helped in that fashion. Maybe you're scratching some itch you need to scratch for yourself, or maybe you're trolling too, but you are definitely not helping anyone, outing them of in any other way doing something productive.

And bringing up BruceZ's transgressions up over and over and over and over get's us closer to the elusive goal of social justice every time his name is brought up. 2+2 politards doing their part in stamping out racism one thread and one post at a time.

"If they're a moral imbecile, it's okay for me to be a moral imbecile too!"

Seems legit.

Either everyone's innocent, or no one is. Also seems legit.

It's amazing !!!1!

The usual suspects just won't kick down with a quote. They'll write walls-o-text about this... but not one quote.

The usual suspects just won't kick down a with a quote here, either. They'll write walls-o-text about this, and attempt to hijack any thread where the R-word is posted because of this (allegedly)... but not one quote, ever.

It's amazing !!!1!

Why do you guys believe all cops are white supremacists hell-bent on keeping the black man down?

Sure, some may deny believing such, but considering all they do is bash on the racist cops, what else am I to believe. Additionally, through my keen observational skills I’ve noticed more than a few of them show up mostly/only in threads that are bashing on racist pigs. If that’s not a red flag, I don’t what is.

I think you need to research what "all" means, because well, inigomontoya.jpg

I thought ‘all’ as in “all cops….” is the categorical opposition to ‘no’ as in “no racism exists.”

Nor did characterize them as apologies any of the 30 times you asked about the quotes.

First, I don't actually think all the bias was subconscious here in Ferguson, but moving beyond that.

...Disband the whole department, fire everyone, start from scratch as many of us have said.
...Acknowledge that "well, oppression happened in the past, my ancestors weren't rich so I oppose all public policy that is designed specifically to help blacks, that's a problem for the blacks" is pretty piss poor and de facto racist.

Not sufficient, but better than throwing up our hands and doing nothjing

Instead he talked about estrogen laden liberal butt buddies and threatened people in the mod forum and by PM. Pretty close though, that's almost feeding starving kids.

Do you feel as bad for Bruce being called names on the internet as you do for the poor plantation owners that met a fate worse than castration post war i.e. losing their property? Just trying to gauge where this falls on the outrage meter.

Would you explain why you say this? Is your question what does spank get out of this? It's been stated. Bruce's posts have little to do with me personally, though my observations are definitely my own, they are certainly observable by others as well.

Does it make you uncomfortable I directly confront uncomfortable behavior like derision, mockery, and diminution? Welcome to politics in this age. Hey at least I am not accusing people of not apologizing and doubting people's apologies due to arbitrary notions of infallibility.

I explained why I think it doesn't matter if people try to troll at the expense of the conflict surrounding Bruce's posts maybe entertained by trying to do that. What do you find faulty about my explanation?

Welcome to the land of asking the right questions!

Indirectly, but explicitly illustrating implicit bias, using examples or analogy is one method professionals use.

HEy he was called a racist and maybe that hurt, so he chose words to hurt whiny little critters like you. And it worked and worked and worked. Drop the charade, you targeted posters kids, you know what being stupid and hurtful looks like.

This is a funny interpretation. In reality those words just gave people more ammunition and it ended up with Bruce being so 'hurt' that he left the site

Do you even know who you're talking to? I was doing that before you made this account.

I cant believe this is still carrying on. This is how I see this debacle. Bruce said some thing that were racist. So does that make Bruce racist? Not imo, I mean I dont know Bruce so I would rather give him the benefit of doubt.


All I know for sure is that Bruce is angry with his Mexican neighbors and said some stupid stuff. I would be angry too if I had those noisy and disrespectful neighbors, as most would be.