Or what should they do if they say they agree, but continue to post the same sort of comments over and over again?

What is their definition of "apologizing for causing offense" is whining that the meanies are picking on conservatives, arguing that just because their entire argument was a racist article doesn't mean it was wrong, and arguing that the argument that made the article racist wasn't actually what the article was saying because, frankly, they don't really regret what they argued and they don't really think the article was racist, they just don't like to be called a racist and want other posters to stop posting mean things about them?

In a world where other posters are going to argue "I didn't bother to read your explanation of why you think a poster is prejudiced", why the hell should I do anything except call the poster of prejudiced words a prejudiced piece of ****? Apparently logic and reason is silly anyways.

Why should we care more about the feelings of these posters than about the feelings of the groups their words target?

Woah, woah, woah. That might be too many questions at once.

Self reflection and/or seeking clarification from those you respect are always good options. If you're feeling attacked take some time.

If it's someone determined to be very provocative then not responding to them is probably best unless you have a very calm disposition.

The issue of Anti homosexual laws is all around the world, not only in Islamic majority nations. Some Chrisitan majority nations in Africa include anti homosexual laws.

To directly answer your question, No, I do not support the stoning of homosexuals, Jesus Christ of course once said let he who is w/o sin caste the first stone.

That said, I love Brunei, and I would not join the Anti Brunei protests in Beverly Hills. Unfortunately some folks believe that all Muslims in Brunei are bloodthirsty savages due to the laws of Brunei.

Chez: Ok... so your answer is to not respond?

So here's what we have so far:

A says something 'racist'.
B says "Yo, A - that was racist"
A disagrees, and doesn't engage...

Now what should B do?

Not for gambool, he already knows all the answers.

Your approach might actually result in some mutual understanding if you persist.

No my answer was to not respond to someone who is trying to make you angry unless you can stay calm. To anyone reasonable you should respond, seeking clarification about the disagreement. It's a forum you can ask others if B is not someone you can handle without getting angry.

Now your question seems to be what should B do if he wants an angry response and doesn't get one. I dunno except to say it would be better if B handled it differently. I feel we lost the track of this Q&A somewhere - you might need to backtrack a bit.

Ironically, I have noted that you have made a good # of Anti Israel posts over in the main politics thread.

I have to ask

Why are you picking on me, I have barely conversed with you on these boards?

Knowing that you have made plenty of posts critical of Israel, in fact you have a higher volume of posts being critical of Israel when put in comparison to my posts being critical of Israel, how can you even suggest that I'm Antisemitic?

There is absolutely nothing Antisemitic about the liberty thread I created, in the liberty thread I made no mention that Jews are followers of an evil religion, or that Jews are out to get us, or that most Jews are out to infiltrate the banks.

The onus is upon you to actually prove that I am Antisemitic, and you have to show past posts of mine which fall under the category of Antisemitism to prove this. Up until now, you have been playing some odd guessing game.


By your logic, if a poster creates a thread being critical of the laws of Saudi Arabia, then that poster is a bigot.

This thread is proving ShameTrolly 100% correct in his description about what happens when actually engaging with those that make racist posts: the issue isn't with how the posters who post racist words are engaged, its with the posters who make racist posts.

Ive tried to lay out my reasons for calling bahbah's posts racist. His response is to just straight up ignore what he actually posted and make up a new story rather than just saying "man I was dead wrong. I apologize".

Chezlaw wont actually read the discussion in question or answer my questions, he just wants to continue to fight a proxy war against BruceZ being demodded without being called on it, logic and reason be damned.

No, you're inferring things that aren't even remotely in the question. I'm starting at the beginning. Two posters with no history at all have this interaction:

A says something 'racist'.
B says "Yo, A - that was racist"

So, I guess I'm back to what should A do here if they don't agree that what they said was racist since your previous response assumed a bunch of extra information about B's intentions.

I figured that you wouldn't condone this practice, and I'm glad to hear you outright say it. I guess your defensiveness about Brunei in general made making the bolded statement above difficult at the time? I know you were getting a lot of heat in that thread.

We all have issues we're sensitive / defensive about, so I cast no judgment. Thanks for the direct response to a direct question. =)

Thekid, you want to support your accusation of bigotry against me while you are here? I laughed it off for obvious reasons, but just to be consistent about your burden of proof statement there why don't you go ahead and humor me? Very curious given the statement you thought was bigoted was me saying I would mock idiots who weren't against Brunei's law in favor of stoning homosexuals and you are clearly against that law as stated above.

I will also accept a simple apology and never mention it again if you want to go that route.

Ideally, A will explain their reasoning.

How B responds does influence the way A will reply, and this should be something B is keenly aware of. Like the the two scenarios below will yield very different explanations from A.

Scenario 1:

A: "blah blah racist stuff."

B: "A, I'm troubled by what you just wrote. When you say 'blah blah blah racist stuff,' to me that sounds a bit racist because, 'blah blah explanation.' Does that make sense? What do you think?"

A: ....

Scenario 2:

A: "blah blah racist stuff."

B: "What a racist piece of **** you are. Take your bigoted ass to stormfront where you and other neocons can serve each other HJs while reading Mein Kanf!"

A: ....

~~~

TBH, I think Bs often respond to As in ways that encourage offensive/aggressive/etc replies so that As fit their (B's) understanding of who As are. Like almost a projection identification or self fulfilling prophesy or something. IDK if that makes sense.

Let's keep this simple and say B responds in the way Duker first responded above. That's clearly scenario 1 without the ridiculous fluff that nobody ever writes ("I'm troubled", "to me that sounds", "What do you think"). And nor should anyone write that since it would make every post a big unreadable pile of garbage.

So if people disagree with him that it reflects a "racist mindset," and think he's ignoring the facts much like Ben Affleck was on Politically Incorrect, focusing on perceived racism to the detriment of the discussion, what then? I think it's pretty ridiculous to use that statement as "evidence" in this trial on racism, it's weak at best. Johny should have had more patience and clarified himself, instead of getting irate, but do you think his clarification would matter? Very weak evidence of a racist mindset has been revealed, evidence that proves just about everyone who discusses problems in the inner city, including, many black musicians, filmmakers, Oprah, Bill Cosby, and anyone who wants to look for solutions to those problems must have a "racist mindset" from the start for assuming there are problems to be fixed in the first place.

Maybe I'm looking at this wrong and it is racist. I'd be glad to debate it further, in my own thread on the subject if Dib doesn't want it here. Anyone have a response to this?

Evidence says generic Poster A is going to whine and not engage regardless of approach as well.

Even you must realise it depends if B is Fly or well named. They should not be responded to similarly. It also depends on whether A is angry.

Lets assume someone closer to well named (or an unknown if you prefer) and A isn't angry. Then seeking clarification is best.

If you're not going to play along, I guess I'll leave it at that. It's not possible to go down every possible path. It seemed like a pretty simple exercise with two unknown posters with no history.

Poster B takes a hostile line the vast, vast majority of the time.

Wish there could be an experiment we could run in Alta. Like, picking a Poster A, waiting for objectionable material, then calling him out...but doing so w/ differing approaches. Like instance 1 we go hard, instance 2 we go gentle, and repeat until we've got multiple examples from each approach and can analyze his responses to the different approaches.

I'm trying to play along. Okay lets assume no history and unknown posters (that's not what I understood by A and B btw, I do now))

imo A should seek clarification from B if he doesn't understand/agree that what he said was racist.

Yup, some truth to that. Its also a repeated game, both in the sense that the forum has dealt with lots of posters that post racist stuff and noted their reactions and in that we are dealing with repeat posters.

Personally I try (but don't always achieve) to give posters the benefit of the doubt the first couple of times down this path. I lose patience quickly with repeat offenders and whiners. I also don't think being fair to posters that post racist things should rank as a top forum priority.

Do you think you have the ability to judge when someone is lying about disagreeing with a racist bit because he doesn't want to be seen as racist, using a pattern of past behavior as evidence?

I have some ability as does everybody (even the inner heart cult members).

The other problem is so many people have such differing opinions on what is racist to begin with. I think the bar is set way too low with many posters here, and it prevents any fruitful discussion taking place while people have hissy fits over a turn of phrase.

Yes.
I think we're talking past each other a bit. I was attacking what was actually said, while you're defending what you assume was actually meant. A racist mindset is not demonstrated by "assuming there are problems to be fixed". It's demonstrated by assuming that 100% of poor inner-city black families are "unstable".