I wouldn't say I'm pro-slavery, but I think we could do a lot of good for the world if we could take the effort FoldN and chez have put into this thread and instead chain them up near a BBQ pit and have them turn the spit for a delicious roasted whole hog or something.

It's okay to be taken in now and again even by something this obvious. We've all done it.

Just take it on the chin for once.

I think it's likely that slaves knew they were enslaved, and could have harbored an anti-slaveowner bias because of that.

Actually no. I asked if you thought it was possible to be indignant without being insensitive. So reading comprehension ftw. YOU answered not yes/no, but rather instead offered up that you didn't think the term was insensitive "and I should know, I have Oa cousin who has Down's Syndrome!".

Summary: Clearly, you, Wookie and Fly are all the same....insensitive in a highly derogatory manner toward mentally disabled people by either being oblivious or purposefully ignorant to the fact that using the term "short bus" is offensive to them as well as 99% of the general public.

My grandfather was a boxer who was punched on the chin many times. I find this comment extremely offensive to boxers everywhere. How dare you? Additional necessary tone policing!

almost worthy

Who did the what now?

What discussion do you imagine you and I are currently having, what substantive disagreement do you think we have?

I'm sure that, nine months from now when I'm still ceaselessly complaining about this one transgression, it will be very worthy

It remains, to this very day, unclear what exactly the SMP people want. Months and months later.

It's not to just discuss issues of the day. There's a reason why this thread attracts ~all of their posts, none of them ever really stake an actual claim. It's not like duffee turns his vaunted stats machine from proving black people do all the crime to analyze how Scott Walker does among suburban evangelicals.

It's not get to Bruce unbanned, since he isn't banned. It isn't to get him remodded, because we can't do that.

It kinda seems like it's mostly a vendetta against MrWookie(and pvn, LG, Trolly, me, etc. by extension). There's this "enemy of my enemy" thing where if any of the people who called Bruce mean names call anyone else mean names those people get defended, but that's really just about it.

Or, to put it another why, why are you here?

If they don't tone police and vaguely pass judgement on the forums, who will?

That's not really being fair to the SMPers (and fellow travelers).

They want what BruceZ wanted... they wanna effectively, if not literally, add the R-word to the profanity filter. They want posters who use the R-word to be subject to mod action, including perma-bans. They want the admins to back all this up as explicit policy.

In general, they wanna remove the possibility of having any meaningful discussion regarding race, by means of censorship.

Now, if the question is what do they want, which is in the realm of possibilities... well it seems they just wanna whine and derail. In other words... they already got what they can reasonably want.

Let’s say that Officer Wookie has omnipotent interrogatory powers such that whenever he asks a person if they’ve committed a violent crime they answer honestly. Let’s further qualify by restricting Officer Wookie to questioning only 1 million suspects and that he must choose beforehand whether to question 1 million blacks or 1 million whites. Since blacks commit violent crime at a higher rate than whites, he’ll get more confessions if he opts to question blacks rather than whites. Is Officer Wookie a racist for choosing to question blacks rather than whites?

Lol. Fly straining to appear genuinely curious.

Why do you care so much why people post here? You ask this question like every 4 pages of someone.

Probably not, but you will be called it again (probably by around 8 posters) for posing this question.

OK, putting aside your racist example, the data in Ferguson show that blacks commit less contraband crimes than whites. Why are more blacks searched?

I seriously cannot tell if duffee is Modest Proposaling or not. There are some seriously ****ed up people in this thread, lemme tell you.

IANAL, but I'm not sure if psychic brain scans are admissible evidence.

That’s just proof that racial profiling is an effective crime deterrent tactic. For if it is the case that the targeted group is committing crime at a higher rate, we would expect to see that show up in the contraband hit rates. Since we’re not seeing higher hit rates from the profiled group, that’s proof that the criminals amongst the targeted group have adapted their behavior to the policing tactic, and that’s proof that racial profiling is an effective crime deterrent tactic.

Amazing. Whether blacks are found with more or less contraband, we should be sure to search blacks more. Pay no attention that your previous hypothetical was about catching more criminals and not deterring crime. So why don't we start searching the white people more, since, you know, they are more likely to be committing crimes, and as such, we need to deter them from doing so?

A higher rate proves profiling is necessary. A lower rate proves profiling is effective. This is the unfalsifiable zone, where evidence doesn't matter.

I have to agree with Wookie and others on the above. This is some very flawed logic.

What's even the point of that hypothetical? In an real life situation there's going to be much more information to go on than race alone.

Like the entire ****ing point is that we should be treating people as individuals and not making assumptions based on race. That far too often the police are seeing black (and that's not even getting into what that says about what they assume about black people) and nothing else, which is how Tamir Rice gets killed in 12 seconds.

Here's another hypothetical. What if you had a bomb implanted in your head that would go off if you thought something was racist. Then we give a million black people psychic brain scans. Now would you consider that racist?

right, and i don't feel that using the term "short bus" is all that insensitive, so i disagree with your fundamental premise

99% is quite a stretch, imo