Bruce doesn't need to apologize. He knew his audience and they understood his meaning. He's not running for office, he's trying to have honest and open discussions. SMP shouldn't be like this forum, where people need to constantly watch their backs not to be misconstrued, and some angles to solving a problem are avoided out of fear the conversation will suddenly turn to shyt.

Can someone actually explain his meaning in all of those seemingly incredibly racist posts? I'm still waiting for that. So far all we've got are 'I'll ban you for talking about this or calling me racist' and 'well obviuosly we knew what he meant but you guy didn't because you look for dogwhistles in everything'.

I mean, if your racist stereotypes tell you that something is inconceivable, and then that thing happens, an actual smart person would consider re-evaluating those stereotypes, I would think. DUCY?

SmokeyJ- If you had never encountered the term "race-baiter" before Bruce's post you probably shouldn't be trying to guess at what imaginable definition makes that not racist.

LOL like clockwork.

Why is Bruce's discussion of his opinions of mexicans open and honest but our discussions about our opinions of his posts not open and honest? Do you think we're being dishonest when we say we think his posts are racist?

People in the 80's thought in racial terms, news at 11.

The 'troll the racist or whoever is critical of fly or Dids, or whoever is an easy target game' is at it's worst when you guys fail at it by decades.

Wow, you guys are making this too easy for Mat. At least try not to completely brutalize the meaning of his father's post right in front of him. Oh, he did ask for examples so that is nice of you.

I think your interpretation of them is dishonest. Pretty sure most of you are completely unaware of it though from years of taking the lazy route and using "key words" and such instead of just arguing the point. Then again some of it is disgraceful, like Pvn outright lying that Bruce said Mexicans were cockroaches. More to come, I'm sure.

Agreed. In my defense I googled the term and looked at the most popular definitions on a bunch of sites which didn't really give clues about its popular uses, but yeah should have just asked that instead of writing up a debate.

It literally has no meaning, which is weird, because "baiting" clearly does have a meaning, but there's no connection there. Just like how "race pimps" also have nothing to do with the pimping. It essentially means "someone talking about racism that I wish would shut up"

I'm ok with taking the lazy route I suppose. What do you consider "a problem" and "the point"?

Fold- Seriously, man, here's just some pro tips from someone's whose brain chemistry is within age and developmental norms:

When you're claiming that something is being misinterpreted, you need to provide an alternative, more plausible explanation.

We're not getting that from any of Bruce's harem of pet Rainmen, instead we're just getting wildly emotional assertions that Bruce is a super nice and smart guy and OF COURSE Mexicans ruined his neighborhood and OF COURSE outside agitators riled up the gullible blacks to riot, but those things aren't racist.

That's not a "differing interpretation", that's us being not racist and being offended, while you are a mentally deficient racist piece of **** and are thus not offended. Because you agree with that ****.

I'm not sure how many people, or how many times, have to ask for the other explanation that SMP got out of his posts but for some myseriously unknown reason none of them can articulate it.

FoldNDark, by the way, I don't feel the need to constantly "watch my back" to avoid being miscontrued. And, honestly, I don't think that's the issue with you either.

What you need to watch your back about is admitting your ****ty opinions, because previous experience has taught you that when you leave the SMP short bus and try to hang with the normals they yell at you for being a piece of ****.

lol sometimes fly just hits the spot

Any given OP in SMP is generally a problem, or an exercise of some sort, let's figure this out. Healthy argument sticks to the point of the OP or a follow up line and doesn't constantly devolve into name calling because somebody decides they know better what you mean than you do. That sort of thing almost never happens in SMP and almost always happens here.

a poster when full racist-****** in the Mike Brown thread and, because the poster is a mod, there is a discussion about context rather than a banning, is that accurate?

Yes.

When are you all gonna fill us in on what his real meaning was?

In which forum would you say it is more difficult to get away with making bad posts? Why should a forum that tolerates bad posting be held in higher esteem than one that doesn't?

And the problem was, in essence, "What does the probability of Brown charging Wilson need to be for a not guilty verdict?" I don't particularly care about any sort of mathematical answer to that question but c'est la vie.

None of that has anything to do with "race hustlers, "circus music", Mexicans, cockroaches, and any other racist bull**** Bruce managed to squeeze into his posts in that thread though. You don't get to hide behind some probability question when you stray into social commentary.

FFS - what he meant was completely clear.

Whether he (or you) think its 'racist' may be a different issue. But that's just because you clearly don't ****ing know what racism is. But if that's your sticking point - let's ignore the word for a minute.

Do you not see how its not cool to think that a large group of people are predisposed to being obnoxious so you believe its fine to hassle people from that group but not people from your own group - when they're doing THE EXACT SAME THING?

Apparently it wasn't clear to any of you. I've tried to explain in several threads what I think he was getting at and why it was a good thoughtful discussion, feel free to see my explanations in the bad poster thread. But I don't have time to answer every one of your rabid misinterpretations and repackaging of his thoughts, nor can I really speak for him. Why don't you go to the thread in SMP and simply ask him what he meant?

Well first of all, the whole 'problem'/topic of that SMP thread is patently idiotic. To BruceZ's credit, he calls out this fact in post #2: "...It wouldn't be based on a numerical likelihood...". But for some reason, the thread continues. In post #44 BruceZ starts to dissemble: '... Of course the liberals will whine about how that violates their "equal protection under the law" bullcrap.'

Prating on about 'the liberals' isn't "let's figure it out", it's not sticking "to the point of the OP", and it wasn't responding to a "follow up line". Then, and I'll quote verbatim, posts #47-49...

So, there's the context. In context, it's a load of racist derp... and it's most certainly not "let's figure it out", it's not sticking "to the point of the OP", and it wasn't responding to a "follow up line". It's not discussing the facts, or anything else like that. It was flat out dissembling.

But sure... maybe, just maybe, one of the SMP mental-midgets can whitesplain this to all of us lowly Politards. But so far they've all refused to even begin to do so. But sure, BruceZ's good at helping with math homework. Good to know.

Cliffs: LMFAO @ SMP !!!1!