The danger in constantly assuming people are racist because of their line of questioning, or for simply bringing up a topic is it does nothing to dispute the points they are making. Perhaps they are or perhaps they are not racist, but who really gaf, just yelling at them for daring to bring up something that could support a racist agenda becomes problematic when they actually have a good point.

Look at how silly Ben Affleck came off on the PI show. Bill Maher and Sam Harris were not trying to spread anti-islamic propaganda because they hate muslims or something, they were trying to point out the danger of entire societies holding views that support violence against women, leaving a religion, or supporting western values, backed with polling data. The right thing to do there is not to cry racist, but explain why those points aren't correct and why.

Typically, I do not get asked if I am Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, by strangers.


I shall try and breakdown what happened, step by step,

A Jewish man comes over to a table I am playing on, sits down, and says to me "Are you Jewish"?

The very first thing that came to my mind was, "cool I can now have a peaceful discussion with a guy" so what I did was I said "Salamulakum" as a means of starting out the conversation. In no way, did I mean ill will toward the Jewish guy.

You probably would have had to be with me to fully understand this, and to realize that in no way, was I being Antagonistic toward the guy. It is not my issue if someone I am talking to takes offense to the words Salamulakum, just as its not the Jewish mans issue if I take offense to him asking me if I'm Jewish.


It is not only fair, it is a good way to get people to come together. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a different language to greet someone, so long as the intention is good. And my intention was good, I did not intend to insult this Jewish man, if the Jewish man took offense then thats sad, because I did not take offense to his question.

Salamulakum is an Arabic greeting used by Muslims, but Arabic is of course spoken by Muslims, Jews, Christians, and others. In fact, Jews and Muslims have similar greetings, different languages of course but they sound somewhat similar.



Im sure some of the folks I come across at the store, mall, etc are Jewish. I do personally know of a few Jews that I maintain contact with.

I did want to ask you, do you know any Jewish folks, what are your own thoughts on Jews in general?



I was addressing your earlier question, In your first response you asked,

I feel that it would be easier to maintain a calm demeanor itt if everyone agreed to act politely.

Could you also please delete any posts that suggest that I'm Antisemitic. How can folks be expected to maintain a polite discourse in a thread where folks are calling others Morons and bigots. I thought that the point of this thread was to get rid of that stuff.

Posters suggesting that other posters are racist/bigoted, and doing so without providing proof, is a personal attack.

The clarifications are frequently rejected because people insist they know what was meant but it's far harder than you suggest anyway - normally both sides are being misunderstood and the clarifications are often also being misunderstood. It's particularly difficult because people are fitting the words to their pre-conceived view on what the person means.

That just sounds like you being one-sided. Both sides tend to get angry and start hurling insults and accusations rather than indulging in attempting to understand each other.

I have been called racist toward African-American's for a few different posts (by wookie and letsgambool), none of which are the slightest bit racist, IMO.

I was also given a temp racist ban by wookie. However, I believe that he now recognizes (not publicly) that claiming that post was racist was a huge leap. If I am allowed to quote the post in question I will, but the interesting part about this ordeal is the PMs wookie sent me explaining why he thought the post was racist.

Letgambool, has called me racist for posting a link to an article that I didn't read (it was a racist article). He continues to call me racist for it even though I read the article after he called me racist and I immediately agreed it was racist and not at all what I was trying to say- it was supposed to be an article about gun laws.

other things gambool has called me racist for:
-suggesting requiring an ID to vote isn't that bad of an idea (at this point I am very indifferent about this law)
-suggesting that there is more racism before the hiring process of a CEO than the actually hiring process
-arguing that we should get rid of minimum wage
-probably 5-7 other things that I can't think of right now

If you responded to this in the way you suggest (apologizing, admitting it's racist, etc) then I think it's unwarranted to continue calling you a racist strictly based on this mistake. Is it a boneheaded move to post articles you haven't yourself read? Sure. But it's not the only time this has happened ITF, and it sounds like you handled it well.

That said, there seems to be a case against you that far surpasses just this event. I'd be interested to know more about some of the other stuff you briefly mentioned...specifically the racism/CEO business. What was that all about?

That's your prerogative but it's an admission you are not even trying to be fair in judging people. Trouble is if you're honest about it then it's not going to be effective - it's a dishonest form of PC as I keep trying to point out. Some mistakes are inevitable but deliberately being biased is unnecessary

But hopefully you wouldn't brand them as an abuser of the elderly or exaggerate your opinion.

Shocked it took this long for you to join.

This won't come as a shock to people familiar with your work, but best case you are completely rewriting your posting history and changing your arguments as you go. Worst case you are a massive liar.

Lets just go through one of your examples here, your racist article

You posted the article in this post

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...3&postcount=14


You didn't immediately agree the article was racist and not at all what you were trying to say (the article in question was about an older white woman shooting an African American teen dead as part of a knockout game gone wrong and included statements about the small brains of African American teenagers and the line "the knockout game is enjoyed by African Americans young and old")

You had linked the article from a site that is literally an onion like site designed to fool racist idiots.

To explain why you linked it from that site, you said that you had gotten an email from someone, read the article, and had to google it to find it again, not that you didn't read it.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...7&postcount=18

So, nope, didn't immediately call the article racist and nope, didn't say you didn't read it.

Over time it evolved into "having read the article but not noticed some of the overtones", "having half read it and half scanned it" and then "having finally read the article" after you realized there was zero chance of being able to defend the garbage in the article, but you first posted a link to the article then immediately following that 1) said you had read the article and 2) immediately got whiny about name calling despite being the one to post a blatantly racist article.

As you can also see, bahbah still needs to go to the mat to argue against the racism in the article and, hilariously, blame other posters for being mean and being the ones to turn it into a racial issue despite the fact that he, you know, linked the racist article

Then bahbah needed to go hard to the paint to argue that the article which said this

in the context of an article about an old white woman shooting a black teenager dead on a site designed to fool racist idiots wasn't implying the knockout game was about black on white crime.

Later he argues just because the story is completely made up doesn't mean we can disregard it

Also by the way, the article still really wasn't racist in ascribing the knockout game to African American perpetrators because saying "the knockout game is enjoyed by African Americans Young and old" is the same as saying...



Here's the whole thread,

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...-heat-1415757/

there are other gems in there such as bahbah saying he didn't need to do a lot of research on the ACA (which, along with making hundreds of uninformed posts in politics alta on the ACA, led him to get deep sixed from the main forum) and his voter ID plan where we deduct money from government assistance for the voter ID's because basically **** the poor, but the racism points are mostly laid out above, much of the rest is just typical lol bahbah

People can feel free to peruse his posting history and make their own judgment, but needless to say he's not portraying his other examples accurately either.

We have been over this 1000 times and bahbah is incapable of even understanding or remembering what he posts so not going go to through each example.

Yeah, he didn't, maybe taking bahbah at face value isn't the best way to proceed to have an honest discussion.

No, this is you redefining the word "fair" to mean "never judging people without absolute certainty."

What is dishonest? Who is being "deliberately biased"?

I'm not branding anyone an "abuser of Jews" either, nor am I exaggerating my opinion. In any case, if you can see that it is perfectly fair to deny a person a job if you suspect that they might be prejudiced against the elderly even if there isn't 100% proof, then you agree with my definition of "fairness."

In the real world, you can correct them. Around here, when you correct them, they tell you you're lying and their misinterpretation of what you said is obviously what you really meant.

This is a strong case, to say the least.

I also want to thank you for refraining from using aggression in your post. Nice work...strongly worded, but not aggressive.

Let's say someone quoted Jesus and MLK and decried the use of insults and then later engaged in insulting people.

What kind of clarification would square those two behaviors? Why do I need to get clarification before I call that person dishonest?

You guys keep making these posts as if there is no pattern of behavior. As LetsGambool has shown, these aren't single posts that have been misconstrued.

Yeah, that's not what happens. I get that that's what you guys really really really really want to believe happens. But its not.

Edit: Hah, yeah the LetsGambool / Bahbah exchange is a pretty good example of how some people build up what happened in a way that doesn't square with the facts.

Here's my post about thekid's USS Liberty thread.

Are you joking? You went off on some conspiracy nuttery about how using a less specific terminology for a type of music was some plan to... hell I don't even know, your posting was approaching Fly level gibberish.

gambool, I didn't immediately say the article was racist? The first post after I linked the article I said I didn't see where the article said the KO game was always black on white. Then the next post I explained that I didn't read it (aka: "I scanned that article when I googled it yesterday").

Yes, I said just because the article is made up doesn't mean something like this hasn't already happened. If you make up a story about seeing a frog eating a fly and I prove that this didn't actually happen - that isn't proof that frogs do or do not eat flys.

Let this be the 84th post where I have said that that article is racist.

I will stand by my point that I do not need research ACA very much to know that I disagree with it. I say this because I disagree that any healthcare plan should actively try to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor (or poor to rich). In the same way if a dictator wanted to create some new laws that was described over 5,000 pages that was mostly about helping people except one page was about murdering anyone that is left handed I would be against the whole law and I don't care what the other 4,999 pages say.

The reason I pitched the idea of taking money from government assistance plans to pay for an ID is because we are talking about $2/year per person.

BTW, what do the above 2 have to do with racism?

Yeah, that is what happens. I get that that's not what you guys really really really really want to believe happens. But it is.

Mind you, I'm not saying it always happens, but it's super common.

So with these responses do people now see why I call bahbah a racist or an idiot in most threads and don't bother with actual discussion anymore? This work has been shown to him before, think of it as shorthand because I don't have time to retype a 30 minute post everyday rehashing the same work bahbah has already been shown and he is not bound by facts, logic, or what he actually posted.

Again, we've been through this.

First post. bahbah said he read it. Said he didn't notice the KO game was always about blacks hitting whites, which as Ive shown above isn't him attempting to call the article racist: he keeps arguing the article isn't saying or implying that the knockout game is about blacks hitting whites throughout the thread. Closes with a whine about the tea party being smeared. Then as he realizes how indefensible the article is, he changes his story about having read it. All there. Black and white, plain as day.

Somehow in bahbah world, that's immediately calling the article racist and saying he didn't read it and other posters are big meanies for calling bahbah a racist and making the thread into a racial issue.

As an aside, yes, I do typically specify specifically which of bahbah's comments are racism and what is garden variety idiocy, just like I did in my above post. Yes bahbah does typically ignore the distinction just like he did in his response and just continue to whine about being called racist about everything.

No its just saying judge them fairly.

You. This:

biases you towards false positives. If you are really unaware of it then it's not dishonest but you talk about the small cost of being wrong in a way that suggests you know you would much rather err on the side of being wrong.

Bahbah, I'm looking at the thread and not seeing the immediate apology and admission that it's racist bud. I'm seeing instead a lot of defensiveness tbh...

Ah, see, here's the misunderstanding. You must be taking your "words don't have meaning" approach and just typing random letters.

There's no way you could possibly know this without seeing into the souls of the posters in question.

What you are missing is that it is also wrong (at least to me) to treat people who are prejudiced as if they are not. That's why I gave you an example when the stakes are higher for both sides.

Sounds like you are jumping to conclusions about what a person means without bothering to seek clarification.

It's not knowledge but we infer stuff about people all the time. I mostly try to do it fairly but make no claims to anything remotely like perfection.

No I get that and I agree. But when we have to err one way because being wrong the other way is worse we also have to recognise that's potentially very unfair on the person being judged.