Not at all. Most reasonable people will see that the defence is likely bull**** because it doesn't make sense. And because its just one part of a pattern of behaviour. Even look at this thread - I don't think babbah in any way accurately reflected what happened. At a certain point people lose my trust that they're just making innocent mistakes. And given anonymous internet posters - it doesn't take a lot.


If you want to not be seen as a racist - stop saying/doing racist **** like this and then making lots of excuses and vague wording to get out of acknowledging what you did was wrong.

What's the approach? Here's Duker's first post:

He's not calling Johnny any names. He's pointing out that its a false dichotomy and what that indicates.

His next post:

Again, he explains whats wrong and states that its evidence of a racist mindset.

The third post (shortly following his second) elaborates on his point more. A bit rougher but still not calling him a racist and just stating once again that he stated something racist.

So what should Duker have done differently? Should he have avoid the words 'racist'/'racism' altogether? How can we possibly have meaningful discussions without the basic words involved with the concept?

That's not my approach or I believe a reasonable one. There's simply no reason to judge him as racist. He posted something, he admits a mistake and makes pretty clear he disagrees with the racist bit (from what I've read anyway). The detailed analysis is frankly ridiculous.

So much seems to be made of the anonymity bit but that makes minimal difference imo. If you're really saying you would treat a 'real' person differently then that may be our only disagreement.

I agree he should take more care but I don't think he should worry much about the low bar favoured by 'your side'. Again if you only take this approach because its anonymous that's possibly our only disagreement.

Hopefully you do realise I'm ignoring your caveat because so is he and you must be aware of that.

I don't think you read very good Chezlaw. Might be why you couldnt tell BruceZ was a horrible racist.

FYI bahbah isn't good at the maths and wont be helping with calculus homework, if it makes reading any easier for you.

Chez, the detailed analysis is the point. Because your simplified:

didn't happen. He claims thats what he did, but the posts don't back him up.

So sure, if you just ignore a bunch of details and look at a really simplified view of things then there's no reason to judge him a racist. But that's only because you've literally just ignored the reasons. Seems like a silly way to look at things.

If by 'your side' you mean people that understand what the word racist means, cool.

I don't know what you're talking about wrt 'my caveat'.

Chez, I agree with this in the least-mean way possible.

It does suit you but it doesn't fit with the meaning.

The detailed analysis is just silly. I gave my view on the situation now and its an easy move on take more care. No judgement is required about the poster.

Trying to link it to Bruce is just playing sides. If I rise to it then your side will insist SMP started it up again.

BTW it can't be me reading bad on this occasion as I haven't seen any reason to read the detail at all. You may be confusing what I actually meant with what you think it meant - to clarify - the process of doing the detailed analysis appears ridiculous in this case, not that I've read a potentially useful detailed analysis and found the conclusions ridiculous.

* A says B did something with reasons X, Y, Z
* B says X, Y, Z didn't happen.

You're perfectly fine with saying, I'm not going to look into X, Y, Z myself because B said they didn't happen. A is accusing B of doing something with no reason!

Seriously, that's ****ed.

If you think my defense is BS do you mind showing me where it is wrong? You can quote my post where I list gambols 4 arguments and tell me where my counter arguments are wrong.

I'll start with you claiming that when you said "this article" you obviously meant "some other article".

I guess straight up ignoring what racist posters actually write because you are determined to show your racist BFF was wronged is one approach to take to this subject.

Honestly saying you have this view because of Bruce is being pretty charitable to you. It's saying fondness of a poster is getting in the way of your judgment. The alternative is that you failed logic 101.

Chezlaw world

Poster a: I hate black people because of their skin color.
Poster B: that's pretty racist yo
Poster A: oh I meant a specific person I know with the last name black.
Poster B: what, that's not what you said.
Chezlaw: I don't get it. Why are you being mean to poster B? You must be on a side you big meanie. Woah is me. How can you say poster A is racist?

When you think they don't understand what someone says:

"It's not a listener's job to endlessly prompt you for what you mean."

When they think that you don't understand what someone says:

"I don't think you read very good"

No I saying its a ridiculous thing to get involved in for him as well. He admits he made a mistake, the bar is so low he can never get P to say they made a mistake even if they did. He should move on and be more careful next time.

Who's P?

Anyway, I'm still confused. Let's start with: if someone says something racist - should they be called out on it?

I do like how you don't pretend it's not a personal attack.

It's rubbish but at least in your case it's honest rubbish.

P is politics. That's where I assume this started and from where my mate blahblah is (mistakenly imo) trying to clear his name.

Of course. Even if you just think they have, or what they said could easily be taken as racist it's a good idea.

Ok, so now if you told someone they said something racist. What do you think they should do?

How did he determine I didn't understand what bahbah said since he, you know, admitted he didn't read what bahbah said?

I reported you for what you said to Duker, IDK why you're even still allowed to post here as that was hell and gone from the line.

DiB - You're the mod. I just carry out the enforcement due to technical limitations.

If you want posts deleted - you have to report them. If you want someone banned from the thread you have to tell them. I deleted the post you reported.

If they agree and they aren't racist then ideally they will correct themselves, apologise for causing offense and resolve to avoid it in future.

Pretty sure the bolded is false.

Cool. What should they do if they don't agree?

Got it, thx.

Crash is thread banned for his choice words towards Duker.