LOOOOL. Fly confirming what I long suspected - anyone who doesn't agree with Fly's racism accusations must be a white supremacist.

Now, I'm sure you'll deny this, claiming that it only applies to people (like me, presumably) who ALWAYS deny racism EVERY time (keep clinging to those strawmen).

Hey, you know some anecdotes that I wouldn't deny racism in? Someone saying "kill all n*****s". Or someone who wrote a newsletter saying that most blacks in Washington D.C. are semi-criminal. It's just that cases like the first basically never get discussed here, because no-one here claims that's not racist. And in cases like the second, even if some people do, I don't care to join in, especially when others have already said everything that needs to be said.

So what's left tend to be the marginal cases where we have limited information, plausible alternative explanations and have to guess at someone's motivations. And even in many of those cases I am completely willing to accept that racism is a strong possibility. But heaven forbid, if you're not at least 99.9% certain that racism was involved, that puts you in the same boat as people that want to lynch blacks.

Nich, you tried this "Don't call anyone racist because I think if you call someone racist they must necessarily be in the Klan and so if they aren't in the Klan you're going to hurt their feelings and also by proxy my feelings for some reason" argument before. Again, you're not special. Plenty of racists have tried the "it's not like somebody got lynched so you can't call it racist" card in the past. They are a very stupid group of people and their grasp of logic is limited at best. They constantly think they fool people when they go "Oh, obviously I don't like racism, but do we really need to call [whatever is currently being discussed] racist?". Like I bet Your Boss sincerely thinks him writing that he personally opposes racism a few posts up makes up for how he defended George Zimmerman by arguing in favor of racial profiling.

Again, the issue here is simple:

1) Racists HATE when anything gets called racist
2) So they come up with whatever bull**** after-the-fact principle to make it so the thing in question isn't racist. Like you, right now, in this thread. But also, like ALexM in his big thread that I linked to. Like DBL in the billboard thread, like half the posters in the forum in the Civil War threads.... it's tired act. Racists have been running that **** into the ground for centuries.

I don't care if I hurt your feelings. You're enormously arrogant for someone who doesn't know how to read and whose grasp of logic is below that of many house pets. Your feelings should hurt. You should be ashamed of how ****ing stupid the things you write are. Ideally, you should write fewer stupid things in the future.

P.S. This wasn't "my" accusation. It was Oprah's. SHE WAS THERE YOU MORON. YOU WEREN'T.


P.P.S. The **** you want, EXTRA CREDIT for agreeing that "kill all the n-words" is racist? Like that's a compromise and I gotta meet you halfway and agree that this story probably had a secret "no-actual-selling" policy? That is not how this works. You don't get "not racist" points for identifying obvious racism that you can then use to defend Jim Crow without it counting as racist.

http://yoisthisracist.com/post/58072...ny-how-racists

It seems you really don't want the one-on-one interactions to get much attention. You are more comfortable judging criminal acts or belligerent, openly racist statements. But it's in the mundane interactions where minorities are getting iced out the most.

I, for one, am shocked that the patron saint of the epistemological uncertainty of racism is willing to grant that there is indeed a case where the racism is certain.

Fly, what percentage would you say of white people are racists? Black people?

If there's one thing you can do to make sure you don't look racist, it's try to start an intense debate about whether black people or white people are more racist.

You haven't been following along. It's impossible for black people to be racist, so 0%.

You haven't been following along.

The point is that calling someone a racist gets almost as much of a reaction as calling them a Klansman, except you get to claim that you weren't being hyperbolic, you were just being "telling it like it is." Just like saying, calling a 20 year old who has sex with a 17 year old is a "kiddie rapist" because it's technically true that 17 year olds are legally children, no hyperbole here. Of course, it doesn't seem like you really care about being hyperbolic, your whole shtick is just to rile people up, and calling people racist is the easiest way to do it.


You know what? Someday, I'm going to look back and say "I'm glad I write so many fewer stupid things, if it wasn't for Fly insulting me all those times I would never have realised the flaws in my arguments".

ohhhhhhh **** I didn't realise that. Sorry.

My issue isn't with Oprah's story. It's with your idiotic claim that if you don't think that racism is the ONLY plausible explanation for a story which we know relatively little about, you must be a white supremacist.


No, the point was to illustrate a flaw in your "if you deny racism in every racial anecdote you must be racist" argument. The only racial anecdotes we ever discuss are the controversial ones, where there are usually plausible non-racist explanations. It should be no surprise that if I don't comment on stories where I agree racism is very likely, the stories I do comment on appear to have me "denying" racism all the time.

Not really a good comparison since age of consent and the age of being an "adult" differs depending on where you live. Racism is racism no matter where you are.

Nich- Again, you're a ****** in clinical sense, so I'll go slow:

EVERYONE IS ALWAYS AWARE OF THE METAPHYSICAL LIMITATIONS ON CERTAINTY. Everyone is aware that Oprah is not a mind reader.

That you feel COMPELLED to bring up "but how can you be 100% sure!" in this case is telling. You aren't compelled to post about every subject, and the caveats that you apply to this story APPLY TO EVERY STORY. Mother****er, again, look at who else is making the same argument as you. Lavon Affair and Your Boss. Again. Like always. This "derp my excellent logic skills just happen to once again exactly mimic Stormfront posts" act is played out.

WE ARGUED ABOUT BUILDING STATUTES OF NATHAN BEDFORD FORREST AND A BILLBOARD SHOWING OBAMA BOWING TO THE SAUDI KING FFS. ALSO WHO CARES? WHAT THE **** IS UP WITH THIS INSANE NEED TO DEFEND THE CHARACTER OF (WHITE) PEOPLE ACCUSED OF RACISM?

Truly hilarious how smug you are about that Klansman thing. It's amazing that your pure logic has just happened to develop a system where if someone does something racist but isn't burning crosses they can't be called racist without the danger of invoking THE WORST ARGUMENT IN THE WORLD. Who the **** do you think you fool with that? It's transparently reverse engineered from your desire not to see things get called racist.

Like did your mentally deficient ass really think "Oh yeah this is just A+ excellent logic because OBVIOUSLY an overriding concern is not hurting the feelings of people who do racist ****, when people read this they'll understand I just have a deep and sincere concern for persuasive rhetoric"

Who's panicky and angry again?

On the one hand, you have people whose argument essentially boils down to the quote that Fly so graciously linked:
and on the other you have fly's posting.

Fly, are you as super mad as your posts make you out to be? Seriously. I'm not sure what's more unhealthy, if you're genuinely mad or it's all just an act that you put on because you like riling people up.

No, my point is not simply the banal one that there's some non-zero probability of it not being racism in the same way there's some non-zero probability that aliens did it. It's that it's really not that unreasonable that Oprah's clothing or language issues or someone else we don't know about was to blame. This does not mean I believe it was unlikely race was involved. As I said before, I think there's a pretty good chance it was. But I don't have enough information to be strongly confident either way. It's like asking me to judge a murder trial I only know superficial details about. If you regale me with dozens of such trials, I'm probably going to say "I don't know" to all of them. That wouldn't mean I thought it was likely all the accused were innocent.

Your Boss might be the basest sort of racist piece of **** who spends his entire life quaking in fear of black people, but I use swears on the internet. SWEARS!!!!

Nich- Homie you have made multiple THREADS complaining about how you seen a thing get called racist and it hurted your baby fweelings. It's a little late to play the "oh I don't even care" card, son. People who don't care see this Oprah story and don't make any posts about it at all. That option was available to you the whole time!

I'm just trying to figure out what level your incomprehension is on. In all honesty it sounds quite a bit panicked. And relatively angry as well iyam.

Can I see these multiple threads I started? And where did I say "I don't care"? I care enough about your dumb arguments to want to reply to them.

Did you miss the cliff's of this post? I notice you didn't respond to it:
To repeat:
So [according to Your Boss] suspecting young black males of being criminals because of their race is just common sense(and if they end up dead, eh), but BY GOD you better not accuse a white person of being racist without 100% PROOF. You could basically ruin her life!

So, yeah, panicky and angry sounds just about right.

It would suck pretty hard to have your name dragged through the mud if you didn't do what you were accused of.

Lol. Defending the actions /= defending the person. And anyway, I called GZ a racist multiple times itt.

That has nothing to do with the post you linked though, and what you did link is something I continue to stand by.

Panicky and angry defending right there.

Most people are pretty blase about things that are simple to understand.

In specific scenarios, like the one I outlined in the linked thread, I think profiling is perfectly fine, yes.

Cite? That's a pretty serious accusation that I'm pretty pretty sure you can't back up, but go for it anyway.

I'm sorry your incomprehension is so panicked and angry, like for real, but for whatever reason you just can't quite seem to get it.

Same post! Literally within the same post. That's amazing.

Bonus round: What is the clerk's name, Your Boss?

Yes! Because they are two very different scenarios! I even qualified the profiling statement, in that same statement! Wild and crazy, I know. I'm sorry you're too thick to understand.

The clerks name is irrelevant to me, a random person sitting in the US. I don't know that it's even actually come out in the media. I'm sure the people she interacts with on a daily basis know exactly who she is, which is, of course, the more relevant piece. I'm sure this has all been one big joy ride for her!

But you said her life was ruined. RUINED!

Also, LOL at going back to bring up your laughtacular justification for racial profiling.

And lol at you for being scared enough of black people to think about crossing the street when you see one! See how easy this is?

I don't cross the street when I see black people, but you repeatedly argued that you could construct a hypothetical to justify racial profiling sometimes.