A giant switch will not be made by an intelligent person who hears an insult. But a smaller switch might be made by a less intelligent person who hears a bunch of INNACCURACIES.

So to convince people, we just have to be less inaccurate than Trump. Seems pretty easy.

This theory has never made any sense, David, and when you advance theories that make no sense that's sort of an inaccuracy by itself, right?

But the response to that is not that people switch sides, it's that they speculate about why you are advancing such an obviously nonsensical theory.

There exist a group of voters who are very sensitive to inaccuracies and incivility, and they tend to vote Trump. Theory checks out.

Sklansky's point that people are probably pretty likely willing to oppress all kinds of other groups that are not "their group" seems correct but also not that relevant. Why is it relevant?

Police in Barstow, CA kill driver of a car with 3 passengers in a parking lot after shooting dozens of bullets at him

Police version of events:

What a video that isn't worth watching because you can't tell what the hell is going on says:

Predictably, shooting dozens of bullets into a car sometimes has side effects:

It seems that people misconstrue my point. I am merely saying that if you are debating an issue with someone in front of uninformed "jurors" you become counterproductive if you throw in contentions that even the jurors know is incorrect. For instance in the OJ trial the moronic prosecutors got off on the wrong foot by claiming that the plastic tarp was put in the car to wrap Nicole's body when in fact it was standard equipment. People seem to think I am saying more than that.

If you continue to play heads up against a player who unwittingly is exposing his cards to you, most people wouldn't give you too much heat if they knew you were continuing to play only because you realized he was marking the cards. Perhaps Mother Theresa, einbert, corvette, Nicholas Kristoff, fly, Elizabeth Warren, Wookie , Paul Wellstone, microbet, and Kant would disagree. But that's about it.

Who's the cop and who's the unarmed black teen in that story?

Also, I think Kant belongs on that list more than I do and I'm more into Hume than Kant.

SHATS

And somehow you keep missing the point that this argument should apply to both sides of the coin. How come these "uninformed jurors" aren't running away from the constant inaccuracies and incivility coming from Donald Trump?

Weirdly, the onus is always 100% on the left to be super polite.

You, Kant, Florence Nightingale, and Maynard G. Krebs think that racists are aholes. Sklansky, Sam Harris, Protagoras and Ward Cleaver are suggesting that they're stupid, but that might be an eminance front.

Kant was pretty damn racist.

Damn, what a pissant.

Actually cuz, there are two weirdlies here.

First, as you mentioned, is this weird assertion that only non-right-wingers have to be super polite. And... that rests on a couple of other piles of crap. First is that the target demographic is US voters (aka those "uninformed jurors"). Second, that there are no "true positives".

Let's do an example to demonstrate this. Years ago, Peta did a "Meat is Murder" campaign. Note that (a) this is insulting all non-vegetarians by calling them murderers, and (b) it is 100% inaccurate, as simply eating meat is not the crime of murder, or any crime at all, in the targeted English speaking jurisdictions.

To go all "Propaganda for Advanced Players", I think we can reasonably conclude that this campaigns effects can be summed up as...

1. A% of non-vegetarians decided to give veggie-ism a try.
2. B% of non-vegetarians didn't change their outlook.
3. C% of vegetarians didn't change their outlook.
4. D% of vegetarians decided to give eating meat a try.

Where A+B+C+D = 100%, and {A+B+C+D} != only US voters. I'm not a Peta peep, but I assume they'd prioritize converting peeps to be vegetarians IRL >>> influencing only US elections.

The people on #TeamN need to make the argument that D > A. Instead, they seem to only be making the argument that #({D} union {US voters}) is non-zero.

Also, people on #TeamN really need to explain how they, who are not activists at all, and have zero direct experience or knowledge doing this kinda activism, know better than the actual IRL activists, past and present. That seems an extremely far-fetched premise to me.

The second problem is that, somehow, the term "inaccuraccies" has slipped in the conversation. The only way "inaccuraccies" enters the equation is if we are using the new-fangled, and 1960s pro-segregationist propagandic "secret inner heart" redefinition of the r-word.

Let's do another example to explain this.

As mentioned above, eating meat isn't against the law in the jurisdictions Peta targeted with their campaign. Of course, people don't like being called "murderers" regardless. But, and this is the important point, if a admitted meat eater tried to claim he shouldn't be called a "murderer" because he doesn't believe eating animals is a good thing in his "secret inner heart"... well, he'd be laughed out of the neighborhood.

What we wouldn't hear about is "inaccuraccies" in what is essentially "grok"-ing these alleged "secret inner hearts". We can observe a peep eating meat, these so-called "inaccuraccies" don't come into play. But, according to #TeamN, we can observe a peep doing and saying racists things all-day-every-day, but me might still always be "inaccurate" in "grok"-ing those "secret inner hearts".

The members of #TeamN are always implicitly pushing this bogus and propagandic "secret inner heart" redefinition of the word racist.

And that's the core issue, and why this **** is so tiring. It's so obviously dishonest.

Like, to take Nich and Sklansky's argument seriously here, right wingers are literally children who know not what they do, their wrongness is beyond dispute but it's also expected, and the role of liberals and leftists is to gently guide them to the light using the lightest possible touch.

But like, they both agree with right wingers? They aren't leftists, they aren't liberals, Sklansky is somewhere in the center-right and Nich is a full bore reactionary. You can't argue that right wing views on racial profiling is not just wrong, but wrong due to naivete and lack of information, while simultaneously PERSONALLY HOLDING THOSE VIEWS and imperiously telling liberals and leftists that logic dictates those views are correct.

Give me a ****ing break.

I think you have to separate general subconscious racism in society (which is obviously bad) from criminal justice/police racism in America.

It is very obvious that the fraternity of police officers and judiciary system in America are actively and deliberately racist. These public institutions and this is much worse and different than "Mary clutched her purse when the black teenagers with baggy pants walked by her on the way home from the grocery store".

Partly at least one leads to the other. People perceiving Black people as more dangerous and out of control leads to more aggressive and punitive treatment for the same behavior all the way from day care to the criminal justice system. That incident where the white cop shot the guy at the gas station on camera was pretty much exactly the cop version of purse clutching. Look at the people we have on 2p2 who are scared to death to take a freeway exit in a Black neighborhood. If they were cops they'd be hyper ready to draw their gun all day every day if they worked in one of those areas.

But cops and judges are conscious of these issues, so their actions are deliberate.

I have written several times that even if unfair circumstances temporarily results in a group being statistically more "dangerous" than other groups that is NOT a good enough reason to profile UNLESS most of the members of the group themselves would be in favor it.

You also continuously make the error of the form

Racists say x

Herbie say x

Therefore Herbie is a racist.

It IS true that Herbie is more LIKELY to be a racist because he says x, possibly much more likely. But it all depends on what x is.

Also, I am at least as likely to imperiously tell conservatives what logic dictates. Except maybe John Sununu.

being concious of issues isn't sufficient. Knowing your fears are unjustified isn't likely to help much unless you take long term actions to correct it.

Which is, of course, not the correct answer. It's not even really an answer, "good enough"? What does that mean?

That is not an error without additional information about X, and it's also not what I'm doing. You are legitimately terrible at syllogisms. You should work forward, not backwards.

Again, not how the process works. Semiformal logic is not real complicated buy a LSAT prep book or something.

This is objectively not true for any timeframe you want to pick.

But like, it's also completely nonresponsive to my point, to such an extent it just provides even more evidence. You're explaining the scenarios where racial profiling is justified, you're trying to explain to me that I'm doing fallacies to call people racists who aren't....

Then what the **** was all that "be nice to convince them" ****? Why do they need to be convinced, aren't they right and I'm wrong? Shouldn't you be lecturing Nich about the best way to convince ME to change my mind?


****ing right wing media, man, it makes you forget intellectual rigor is even possible.

See I have the same problem with this new Far Cry game; I put all my perk points into "civil discourse" and neglected to put points into "formal logic" and now I can't convince the bears to stop attacking my dog.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...tander-angles/

Here's what bravery from a police officer looks like. Dude killed 10+ people and is pretending to point a gun at the officer.