Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
First and foremost, this asinine claim of “white privilege” existing is absurd. Anyone who purports this garbage must acknowledge and accept that there is then black privilege, Asian privilege, brown privilege, India(n) privilege, Native Indian privilege, Eskimo privilege, Middle Eastern privilege, Arabian privilege, so on and so forth. You cannot have one without having all the others.
Thank you for demonstrating that you have no idea what privilege means.
the 3/5ths compromise had absolutely nothing to do with so-called “white privilege” and everything to do with congressional representation
Clearly, you didn’t bother to read a word of what I said.
As I already explained, the reason for bringing up the compromise was not to argue that the compromise itself somehow benefited white people, it was to demonstrate how absurdly unequally our nation treated individuals primarily based on their skin color. It is all the proof any rational individual needs to recognize that there certainly existed white privileged in this country.
Continuing to strawman that point is not a rebuttal.
the 3/5ths compromise had nothing to do with counting slaves in the census as actual persons, you flippant ignoramus.
Enlighten me… How did the government count the number of slaves who lived in each state in order to determine proper congressional representation and proper taxation?
Fourth, your dumbed down post only benefited you, @Double_R. Stupid is as stupid does in order to comprehend stupid.
Calling me stupid is not a valid argument. Clearly you do not plan on answering the question, I suspect because you know what a ridiculous proposition it is to suggest that anyone would rather go back to 1800’s America as a black person instead of a white person.
So keep dodging it all day long, every person reading this knows what your answer would be.
Third, blacks owned slaves too; an obvious inconvenient fact that Double-R ignored when I mentioned it (no surprise).
I ignored it because it’s a nonsense argument. It’s a common tactic by those who are just plain wrong to try and save face by taking an obscure exception and misrepresenting it as the norm in order to try and paint a false narrative of reality.
In 1830 the percentage of slaves who had black masters was approximately 0.6%, and many of those masters were of mixed race. The idea that we should be talking about this fact in the context of understanding whether white privilege existed in this country is patently absurd.
Ignoring my comments and the truths they convey = silence which = concession to those truths. Proves you don’t know what you’re talking about. So thank you for that concession.
lol wow someone is full of themselves.
Sorry to break your ego stroking “I owned the lib” session here, turns out I actually have a job and can’t sit on this site all day long. I respond when I can get to it. I know, shocking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You didn't specify where in America, and that's a huge oversight.
That wasn’t an oversight, that was the point.
I specifically stated “location unknown” to make you think about the broad circumstances within the country as opposed to doing what you predictably did; found some pocket somewhere in America where black people didn’t have it that bad to make it seem like that is somehow reflective of the rest of the country.
The only questionI have is why? Why pretend you don’t know any better? Why pretend it’s a difficult choice as to whether you would rather go back to pre civil war America as a black man or a white man? Are you really that partisan and that deluded to think this is a difficult choice?
Created:
-->
@Novice_II
And I am not sure what the hell you are talking about. Please feel free to elaborate.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Now define a woman please.
Define God.
And don’t give me some definition that other people out there disagree with otherwise we won’t be able to use it and all of our language will just dissolve into mess causing chaos within our society that will take us all down.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Finally, we come to an understanding.
No, we apparently haven’t.
You seem to just be zeroing in on trigger words and phrases and disregarding everything else you’d rather not deal with. So when I said there’s no correct way to interpret these terms all you heard was me saying “I’m not correct”.
You are the one who argued the opposite of what I just said and continue to do so. You are the one claiming that there is a correct way to use the terms and that is your way. I’m saying we aren’t limited to how previous generations spoke, so if we agree then that undercuts every argument you have made.
So, can we make up our own personal definitions of words, or should we just stick to the key to how society has run and thrived for hundreds of years?
This is not only a false dichotomy, it’s nonsensical.
I just explained to you that words change over time. Go back hundreds of years and you’d barely be understood by anyone you’re talking to. Dictionaries understand this full well, that’s why they update a definitions in the first place. This isn’t some new phenomenon spawned by the LGBTQ community, it’s what linguists have spent the past century or more studying.
Also, you seem incapable of understanding the difference between referring to “we” as individuals vs “we” as a society. Once again, no one is arguing that every individual can just run around making up their own words. Language is about communication, and we need other people to understand our terms if we want to convey thoughts and ideas. But if everyone is on the same page, we can all change terms to whatever we want because we will now be able to understand each other.
This is really basic stuff and is not controversial when it comes to any other topic. The fact that now, all of a sudden on this one topic right wingers need this very basic fact explained speaks volumes about how political ideology deludes the human brain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Here, since we need to dumb this down even further let’s try the following:
You are being forcefully placed into a Time Machine and sent back to America in the year 1820, exact location unknown. You have two choices:
A) Being sent back as a black man with $200 in your pocket
B) Being sent back as a white man with nothing
Which would you rather it be?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
The 3/5ths compromise resulted from the fact that southern states did not want black people to be counted as human beings in the census, and while the north did want them counted their willingness to compromise on whether black people were… you know… people, tells us everything we need to know about how black people were regarded during this time period.
The fact that the compromise itself didn’t further underprivilege black people has absolutely nothing to do with the point.
Was there ever a time when we as a society had to debate whether white people should be regarded as… people? No of course not. Hence, at the very least, white privilege is absolutely a part of American history.
The fact that you cannot admit this very simple, objectively verifiable fact speaks volumes to how deluded you are as an individual. If you wanted to come off as even slightly credible you would argue that white privilege did exist but does not anymore, but you can’t even get that right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You literally claimed white privileged never existed. The fact that black people were considered 3/5ths of a person by the constitution our country was founded on *alone* refutes that asinine claim.
Do you even know what privilege means?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Imagine how deluded one has to be to think white privilege never existed in a society where just being black meant you were regarded as property of the white man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
There is no such thing as white privilege. It never existed. Can’t prove when something ended if it never began in the first place.Your premise is patently ignorant. America was never founded upon racism, blah blah blah. Bullshit liberal talking points.
The constitution literally counts black people as 3/5ths of a person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you actually, seriously, believe the FBI orchestrated the Jan 6th attacks?
Also, I cannot for the life of me figure this out… you guys love to say January 6th was no big deal. So how was it both nothing, and a government conspiracy?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
To assume that gender is a human construct, is to assume that there are more than 2 genders, and that proposal cannot be argued thoroughly or good in any way.
If it’s a human construct then there is no “correct” way for us to interpret it. It’s up to us to decide that, that’s what this conversation is about.
So, everyone through human history is part of the political right?
Political right and left are sides based on society’s issues. This hasn’t been an issue till now, so no.
So, by that logic, everyone can use the same words to mean different things, and then society falls.It would be like this:One person thinks the word firetruck, means car crash, and the other person thinks it is a truck that puts out fires.With logic like this, the world couldn't go round.This logic is plain stupid.
Strawman logic often is.
No one is arguing that *everyone* can just use words however they want, we’re talking about how all of us should be thinking of these terms, or at the least in this particular conversation I’m explaining to you that while you can take issue with how someone else uses a word, you can’t pretend their argument is stupid because you’re translating everything into your own terms and not theirs.
As a functioning society, we have to have the same basic understanding of the English language, or else no one will understand what anyone else is saying.
And yet definitions have evolved all throughout the history of human civilization, yet we’re all still here, still thriving.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No, it's what humans have based it on through all of human history up until now.
Humans also thought slavery was ok for most of human history, until we realized it wasn’t. Our previous usage of gender is irrelevant to what makes sense now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Never forget a nonsense right wing conspiracy theory? Why not?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No, gender has everything to do with science. It is based in biology. It is not a social construct. It is how people identify, based on their biological sex.
No, that’s what you base it on.
Biological sex is a matter of fact which we look to science to define. Gender is a human construct no matter how much you pretend it isn’t. Science has nothing to do with whether one prefers to be called a him or a her, whether one should wear Timberlands or a dress, or whether one should pursue a career as a seamstress or a construction worker. We invented all of that, and that is all part of the conversation with regards to gender.
What the political right does is just pretend that the way we’ve always thought of gender is the only way to think about it, and then by extension pretend that when other people talk about it they’re using words in the same way you are. That’s just plain stupid.
If you want to have a conversation with someone else you have to begin by understanding what they mean when they use certain terms. That’s common sense. People who are experiencing and/or advocating for those going through gender dysphoria are talking about all of this is a very different way. If you’re going to criticize it the least you can do is make an effort to understand what others are talking about.
And your right, it isn't and shouldn't be complicated, but the left and the LGBTQ+ community has made it just that.
Well I’m so sorry for you that there are people out there who don’t fit neatly into your little boxes for what you think gender is supposed to be. I know it can feel daunting having to expand your thinking about an issue you’d rather leave alone, but those people are out there regardless of whether you want them to be or not.
If you don’t care about these people or just don’t care enough to learn about where they are coming from that’s fine. Just admit that and move on. But stop pretending that they and those who advocate for them don’t understand science or whatever other ridiculous straw man you are trying to push.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The discussion over gender has absolutely nothing to do with science.Sadly, this is true.
And what is sad about that?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
The right is trying to steer clear of the left’s destruction of society and humanity over this denial of fact based truths (e.g. the sciences).
The irony of this statement is breathtaking.
But that aside, it’s also complete bullshit. As usual, the political right invents a caricature of the left and then spends all of their energy attacking it while the left just sits there in amazement.
The discussion over gender has absolutely nothing to do with science. It’s about how people feel and what we can and/or should be doing to respect our fellow citizens and allowing them to live a life of dignity. This isn’t complicated.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I think it's very olimportant that some people hate themselves so much they try to cut their dicks off to become somebody new. An alarming amount realizing that they are still who they were before and can't escape the self help, decide to kill themselves to finally escape themselves.Obviously a grown man can do what he wants including cut off his dick,It's much better that instead of telling incels becoming women will solve their problems, is we start telling them that they need to accept themselves and love themselves…
Read this over again. Recognize that this is how half the country looks at these people, and in some communities it’s a nearly unanimous viewpoint. Then ask yourself again why many of these people would want to kill themselves.
The problem with accepting them as we have seen is that many mothers with manchausen by proxy have used this as an excuse to start mutilating their children
Show me where this is happening.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I just find it amusing how obsessed with this topic the political right is. Do you guys really have nothing better to be concerned about?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
That’s not a point, it’s literally the opposite.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
That doesn't answer why thy FBI informant wouldn't answer the question. If they had nothing to do with the riot, then why would they have a problem with answering?
Are you talking about Ray Epps?
Who cares? Let’s just assume we don’t have an answer to your question… now what?
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
For him to talk about Mexico ‘sending their criminals and rapists’ as meaningful there would have to be a significant number of Mexicans in that group who are rapists in order to warrant him calling this out as a major political issue1% of a million people is pretty significant.
Can you guys make up your mind?
The whole conversation started because I said Trump called Mexicans criminals and rapists, and the rebuttal to me proving that point is ‘well dUh they are’?
Did he call them rapists or not?
This may be news to you but ummm. There is no Muslim ban. They immigrate here everyday.
No shit. That’s because (A) the courts would not allow a Muslim ban, and (B) the “travel ban” Trump was constitutionally allowed to put in place was rescinded on day one of the Biden administration. What part of anything I said are you under the impression you were refuting?
First of all, our leaders have a very good understanding what the hell is going on. Trump is as usual, projecting his own remarkable ignoranceThen they can only be called evil by not solving the problem. They really should focus on solutions if everyone but Trump understands the problem perfectly.
Understanding a problem and being able to solve it are two entirely different things. It turns out the world is quite complicated.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Assuming that immigrants won't commit crimes based on only the fact that they are terrified of getting caught, is racist in of itself, because you are assuming that all immigrants that cross the border, are stupid, and don't understand basic United States law.
This is really simple. People who are here illegally face far more dire consequences for engaging in certain behaviors than legal residents, therefore they are less likely to engage in those behaviors. That’s not racist. That doesn’t imply stupidity. It’s basic human nature and common sense.
Then why is there evidence of FBI agents whispering in people's ears, and then seconds later, they are tearing down blockades and other things of that manner? And why when the FBI was questioned about this, did they refuse to answer, or address these claims?
There is absolutely no evidence of FBI agents engaging in the Capitol riots in any way.
The reason the FBI wouldn’t answer the questions is because they were framed in such a way as to ensure they wouldn’t answer them. The FBI’s biggest concern when answering any question is to ensure their sources and methods for attaining information are not compromised, if they are then their ability to solve cases would be irreparably harmed because people would lose trust in the institution and not talk to them. Every question Cruz asked was phrased as “FBI agents or informants”. An FBI informant is *anyone* who speaks to the FBI and gives them information, so as soon as he throws that word in there she is not allowed to touch that question with a ten foot pole regardless of what he’s asking.
This is conspiracy theory nonsense 101; ask questions authorities are not allowed to answer for valid reasons and then pretend a lack of an answer implies some conspiratorial guilt. It works because people are terribly ignorant of how the real world works. The crazy thing is that Ted Cruz understands this full well, the guy is a Harvard graduate. He did that on purpose because he knows people like you would fall for it, and it clearly worked.
The only thing your video demonstrates is how loathful of a human being Ted Cruz is. And notice how he does the Trump thing of pretending that these are legitimate questions because “a lot of people are concerned” about this. Yeah no shit, they’re concerned because they have people like himself purposefully spreading this garbage.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
@YouFound_Lxam
And why does it take the committee 800+ pages to explain why Trump incited the riot. If it was so obvious that he, did it, it would take only a couple of pages.
Compelling evidence should never take 800 pages to explain.
In all seriousness, this is a ridiculous argument and you two really should abandon it immediately.
It doesn’t take 800 pages to see that Trump was responsible for January 6th. That’s just how much evidence is out there because this was such an obvious case.
Much of the evidence is right there is plain sight because he did it right in front of our own eyes. But I’m not going to go through all of that right now so let’s just make this really simple; go through the Mark Meadows text messages. Take note of how all the people around Trump including Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram and Hope Hicks understood full well as it was happening that Trump was responsible. That alone should tell you something, and that’s before we get to the mountain of evidence.
This isn’t rocket science.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Are you blind. He just called some are good people. But it is common knowledge that a lot of illegal immigrants will be involved in illegal activities.
First of all, read my post again. I already addressed the “some are good people” part.
Second, nothing in Trump’s speech suggested he was only talking about illegal immigrants. He talked about the people Mexico was ‘sending over’ (whatever that even means). If he wanted it to be clear that he was only talking about those here illegally he would have went out of his way to say so. He didn’t.
Third, your statement that illegal immigrants are more likely to be involved in illegal activities is just plain wrong. Every serious study on this consistently shows that illegal immigrants are the least likely of any group within the US to commit crimes, and the reason for this is not rocket science; they are terrified of getting caught. The last thing they want is to get stopped by police. They don’t get the luxury of spending a night in jail, they will get deported. That’s quite a big motivator.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
It isn't a blanket statement. It merely means there are some criminals in the mix it does not say a majority or anything like that. The statement would still be true if 1 in 500 immigrants were criminals.
That’s an absurd interpretation.
There are some criminals in every single large population group we would conceivably ever discuss, so if that’s all he was saying his statement would be completely and utterly meaningless.
For him to talk about Mexico ‘sending their criminals and rapists’ as meaningful there would have to be a significant number of Mexicans in that group who are rapists in order to warrant him calling this out as a major political issue that’s not only worth noting, but significant enough to build his presidential candidacy on top of. You cannot a straight face suggest he was “merely” pointing out that fact that criminals exist within this group.
Yep you cut off the last part which stated it was very temporary until they could figure out how to reduce terrorists from immigrating to the United States.
His next sentence was “until our leaders can figure out what the hell is going on”. I cut that off for good reason, because there is nothing of any intellectual substance being communicated there.
First of all, our leaders have a very good understanding what the hell is going on. Trump is as usual, projecting his own remarkable ignorance.
Second, the complete vagueness of this “temporary” timeline leaves open the possibility that he would just leave it as is indefinitely, which is exactly what he did once he figured out how to enact it. This is what he’s done every time he pretended some decision he made was temporary from this to not releasing his taxes to appointing “acting” heads of various US intelligence agencies. he never intends to do things the right way until he is forced. The most basic observation of this man makes that blatantly obvious that he never had any intention of this being short term.
I believe he figured it out fast, never instituted the ban because he figured it out and instead just targeted countries who statistically were more likely to send terrorists.
No, what he figured out was that the constitution does not allow a religious test to determine one’s eligibility to come to the US, so he had to figure out a way to get what he wanted by repackaging his proposal as geographic location based instead of religious based. And even then, his ban was blocked numerous times by numerous federal judges until he amended it enough so that it didn’t appear on its face to be a Muslim ban. Anyone following this in real time could see how flagrantly obvious his intentions were.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Next time you post these things, you need to go deeper into the facts, and not just read the headlines, like:Trump calls all Mexicans rapistsTrump tries to ban all Muslims
Please stop with your projection. I just went into detail on each of these. Feel free to read and respond. [post 47]
And no, even though you can keep repeating it over and over again, Trump did not incite January 6. It was only a conspiracy. The only evidence that they have of Trump doing that, is the way he was......looking at the crowd?
The January 6th committee just released an 800 plus page report explaining their evidence. Have you read it? Do you have any clue what’s in it besides what Fox News and OANN told you?
We can sit here going through it page by page, in fact I would love to debate you or anyone else on that, but let’s keep this really really simple… we know he incited the Capitol attack because the people who attacked the Capitol told us so.
This isn’t rocket science.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
First “black” President and you sit there typing with a straight face believing “no one on the left” would take issue with his joke being raided and him being arrested!?!How do you expect anyone in this forum to take you seriously anymore after posting that completely ignorant bullshit statement???
Let’s start with what I actually said:
“Second and more importantly, if Obama had stolen classified documents no serious person on the left would take issue with him being arrested for it.”
Perhaps English isn’t your first language so I’ll translate. “No serious person” does not mean “no one. “Serious” had to be thrown in there because there are always going to be morons out there arguing any position that can be conceived. When we have good faith conversations we tend not to talk about those individuals because they are irrelevant to the broader picture.
It’s also interesting how you put quotes around that line. Again, maybe English is still new to you but when you use quotes that normally means you’re repeating what the other person said verbatim.
Oh, sorry, verbatim means word for word.
He never said “all” Mexicans were rapists.
Neither did I, so what’s your point?
Also, he never said “all” Muslims either.
No, he said “complete and total” with regards to not letting them in the country. Google the definitions if you need further assistance translating.
At no time did he ever order, direct or insinuate his “supporters” to attack the capital.
Funny, his supporters who attacked the Capitol all seem to disagree with you.
TDS much?
Clearly. It just doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
the problem is the reason why no one else was willing to do or say those things.100% agree. It's a problem when concerned people are too afraid to reform a corrupt and incompetent government.
That’s not what I was talking about genius. This concocted fantasy of government censorship is fairly new. In the real world, the backlash people face when saying such stupid and horrendous things is felt through the media, corporations, social media, you know… all of society. But Trump gave the deplorables permission to feel like they could say whatever they wanted, so concepts like respecting your fellow human beings and respecting democracy itself were no longer things we should all agree on.
So those folks can continue voting for Trump or others like him who don’t care about these basic ideas and the rest of us will move on and focus on trying to build a better society.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
That's just not true. The rape comment he said that there are many rapists and other criminals who illegally immigrate to America. You will not find a quote where he said most of all illegal immigrants are rapists.
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. […] They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people”
- Donald J Trump 8/31/16
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best” Is a pretty blanket statement. No it doesn’t mean every single one but that wasn’t the insinuation. If I said black people are lazy that doesn’t mean you can’t find one non lazy black person, that’s common sense. We tend to speak in generalizations not in absolutes.
But that last sentence is the most telling: “some I assume are good people”. This is English 101; “I assume” is a qualifier you put in front of a statement to communicate that you aren’t fully sure that you’re saying is accurate. So he needed that qualifier when it came to saying that some were good people but not when it came to telling us these people coming over were rapists and criminals.
Your interpretation is not what came out of his mouth.
He never called for a ban on Muslims.
Complete and utter bullshit to which there is no excuse.
“I Donald J Trump am calling for a complete and total shut down of Muslims entering the United States”
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I think that most democrats don't like Trump, because he said things no one else was willing to say. And he did things that no one else was willing to do.
Agreed. No one else was willing to call Mexicans rapists or call for the banning of all Muslims. No one else was willing to wage an all out war on the free press and label them “the enemy of the people”. No one else was willing to rally up their own supporters to attack the US Capitol because they were mad they lost.
The problem is not that he was willing to do or say things no one else would, the problem is the reason why no one else was willing to do or say those things.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
The absurdity of this woman’s rant became apparent within the first 20 seconds.
She begins by asking if Trump sent the FBI to arrest Obama would the left hand called him a dictator.
First of all, there is no evidence at all that Joe Biden had anything whatsoever to do with the FBI search, so she has already failed.
Second and more importantly, if Obama had stolen classified documents no serious person on the left would take issue with him being arrested for it.
This is one of those things that never ceases to amaze me about Trump. It reminds me of dealing with a toddler; they do something bad so they get a spanking, but then they get mad at the parent for spanking them. They haven’t developed that ability yet to connect their actions to the consequences of said actions. Whatever consequences they face are entirely the fault of those imposing them, and whatever behavior lead to them ceases to exist once completed.
This is what arguing with Trump defenders is like. Trump steals top secret government documents, blame the FBI for searching his residence. Trump tries to extort a foreign nation into slandering his political opponent, blame the democrats for impeaching him. Trump leads his followers to attack the US Capitol and does nothing while the attack was underway, blame the democrats for trying to stop him from running again. Trump’s actions just do not matter, how dare the democrats oppose him. How dare the media reports on all the insane things he’s said and done. How dare his own advisers throw him under the bus under oath. Nothing is ever Trump’s fault, his behavior ceases to exist once completed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
My contention isn't against whether or not your conclusion logically extends your premises. My contention questions the reason you introduced the premise in the first place.
And I've explained my reason for doing so in detail. I'm not concerned with whether you accept it, that's not what the thread is about.
if you are unwilling to provide a rational basis for your suspicionsI have. Go back and look.
No, you haven't. All you did was provide a bunch of leading questions offering your view of the issues raised, you made no attempt to address mine.
Hey, don't take my shit. "Have a nice day" is the way I end things, okay? Get your own. If you continue to employ my trademarked phrases, I'll be forced to thrash you with my vicious rhetoric.
No need to run down to the patent office in a tizzy, that line was just for you ; )
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The last paragraph of my OP you quoted wasn't so much the conclusion of it as much as the logical next step in exploring the phenomenon. I started the thread off with the "more guns = less gun violence" point because that is what a lot of 2A enthusiasts seem to believe based on their arguments, but under scrutiny seems impossible to uphold. Still, if someone actually does believe this then the argument I made up doesn't apply to them, it's just that based off of the apparent absurdity of this position I am awfully skeptical that this is really what most 2A enthusiasts believe deep down.
That's when I pivoted towards the "bad guy with a gun" point. In my experiences arguing with and observing 2A enthusiasts, this seems much more prevalent and more coherent to explain how most see this issue. Personal responsibility is a theme among conservatives, that's basically where this seems to be coming from. It certainly offers a coherent worldview where one can assert that communities suffering from gun violence warrant minimal consideration without being flat out indifferent to human life.
So to address your points directly;
Yes to #1. Chicago as an example is the political right's poster child for talking about gun violence. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that people (who are overwhelmingly white) using this as their example of a liberal gun hell hole don't know that most of the people in the affected areas there are black.
Mostly yes to #2 but I believe that there's a lot of cognitive dissonance there, which is where the "more guns = less gun violence" point comes in.
To # 3 Yes, that's the conclusion. But it's not a direct thought as you describe. I'm not saying that these people think to themselves "well I hate black people so I don't care of they're dying", im saying they are more apathetic to the loss of life because they view it more as a social problem for those communities to figure out. In other words, their explanation for why the violence is so bad in these areas is primarily because of the people there, not because of the conditions in which the people in those areas have been subjected to, the prevalence of guns to which they have contributed being part of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The only thing I'm ignoring are your pointless deflections. The fact that there are diverse groups within the black community is common sense to anyone who lives amongst our society. That has no relevance to this topic. Again, this is a broad conversation about American politics. I don't know what is so difficult about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What exactly do you think will happen when the gun-control "enthusiasts" start confiscating guns from people who live in black communities?
What the hell are you talking about? There is nothing in this thread nor the national debate on gun control that has anything to do with gun confiscation. This is an absurd and entirely made up right wing boogeyman.
My point is whether or not 2nd A "enthusiasts" ignore what's going on in the communities is irrelevant if it also so happens to be what the people in Black communities want anyway.
They don't. The black community is the most supportive of any racial group in the US when it comes to stricter gun laws.
And if you were to be totally honest about it, the reason why red state people don't give a care about dead blacks in New York gangwars likely has nothing to do with skin color.If they were being totally honest, "a good Democrat is a dead Democrat" would likely be the most prevalent sympathy.
Since racism plays no significant role in this according to you, please explain how you got from black people -> gangwars -> liberals (who are better off dead)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The only childish worldview in this thread are the people dismissing the very prevalent black democrats in high crime areas that are also pro gun because of a long history of Jim Crow gun confiscation. Ignore this fact at your own peril as you push your "woke anti-gun narrative"
I ignore this talking point of yours because it has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
"What I’m implying is that much of the political right’s opposition to gun control laws stems from an overly simplistic world view where everyone is either a good guy or a bad guy... in order to maintain this world view one would have to accept the notion that those communities facing serious challenges with gun violence (like the black community) are ultimately filled with “bad guys"In one sentence he says EVERYONE is a good and bad guy (that's all places and all races), and then inexplicably states a ridiculous non-sequitur that at the same time, only black communities are filled with bad guys....just throws it out there for no fucking reason.
Please learn to read.
I didn't say everyone is a good guy and a bad guy, I said everyone is a good guy *or* a bad guy. This point is important because it points to the overly simplistic and even childish worldview many hold, where nuance is dismissed and the trials and tribulations people go through to make it in this world are dismissed outright. When you give yourself the luxury of not having to burden yourself with where others are coming from you are going to be more prone to misjudging the character of others. This is a very prevalent trait in what anyone would call a racist.
But more importantly, I never said it was only in black communities. I said it was far more common in black communities, because it is. That's a fact, and one I'm sure you yourself have pointed out many times as you argue against BLM sympathizers.
And I didn't throw this out for no reason, I walked you through step by step how we get from the premises to the conclusion. You haven't even bothered to address it but rather deflect with all of this strawman bullshit.
Learn to read, then try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Literally every Republican on the site who commented on this made it about what political football team they are on, instead of the issue.
^^^^^
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
And you’re dead wrong.People are opposed to asinine gun control is rooted in safety (ie - self-defense and defense of others) from violent offenders who would t think twice about pulling the trigger on you or a loved one, and a corrupt tyrannical government. That’s why we oppose gun control. It has absolutely nothing to do with racism. 🤦♂️
You haven't read a word of this thread.
I stated "much of" the political right's opposition is rooted in racism, not the entire reason. And if you bothered to read any deeper, in no way am I arguing that racism is the main reason but rather an element of how people shield themselves from the counter arguments of their position.
Try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
It's an offer that relies on syllogistic reasoning from premises that can only conclude a "racist" inference.
Great, so we agree that the conclusion is valid.
So let me know if you have an actual challenge to the premises.
I suspect the goal of this exploration was to make pro-gun supporters out to be "racists."
I've already explained in detail what my goal is, if you are unwilling to provide a rational basis for your suspicions then I don't give a rats ass what you suspect. Address the argument or don't. And if you won't then you are free to have a nice day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Would it surprise you to discover many law abiding Blacks in diverse and distinct communities both rural and urban very much want to keep their guns?
Yes, I figured that out back in third grade.
This conversation is not about individuals or groups within groups, it's an overview of American politics and the ideas that are prevalent within it. You're free to join it at any time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
There’s a simpler explanation:
I realize I should have worded the thread differently; instead of "fuels" I should have said "adds fuel to". My point however, I think was made clear in the OP.
I'm not offering what I believe to the the explanation for gun advocacy, I'm just pointing something out which I thought contributes to it. How much is anyone's guess but I thought it worth exploring.
With regards to the points you made, I agree with your assessment to explain why certain groups based on geographical location are more predisposed to landing on one side or the other of this issue. The question then is about what feeds into one's propensity to remain in that position.
Earlier I used the pork example. If you tried to convince someone who's never seen a pig get slaughtered to stop eating pork, showing them probably won't change their mind, but it most likely will make them more sympathetic to the other sides viewpoint.
I think part of what's stopping much of the country from being more sympathetic to gun control arguments is ultimately rooted in racism for the reasons I've laid out in detail. I'm just curious what people have to say to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
One cannot avoid racist judgement when the premise of one's analysis is so-called "race." YOU ARE THE ONE bringing up
Racist judgement can be avoided by challenging the premise *or* the conclusion of the argument.
This is like saying "you're the only one bringing up that Socrates is mortal". Well, yeah duh. If all men are mortal and Socrates is a man...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most of these monolithic assumptions such as the OP originate from people living in large concentrated urban areas like Chicago and New York, where they never encounter ANY diverse groups of people of color outside of that limitation.
So someone who actually comes from a diverse population center has less experience with diversity within groups than someone in suburban or rural America?
Wow GP, your absurdity had reached a new low. That's impressive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
We can call anything reasonably considered gun violence to be done by bad people.
Then any police officer who fires his gun can be reasonably considered a bad person.
You make this distinction about group vs individual but saying “bad GUY with a gun” is a statement targeting an individual- said guy with a gun.
The whole point of this thread is about how the perception of the group feeds into one's acceptance of this narrative on the individual level as sufficient to explain the problem.
In other words, if you accept that gun violence is mostly committed by black people and you accept that gun violence is the result of "bad guys with guns", then by extension, you must accept that black people are just far more likely to be bad.
That belief is by definition, racist.
Racism doesn't mean wrong, it is possible that this assessment is factually accurate. But, as a non racist individual, this should make one question their thinking and ask themselves what else is going on here.
Within the countless arguments I've heard; "guns don't kill people, people kill people", "gun laws only stop law abiding citizens", etc. none of this seems to be considered, hence why I bring it up to see what reception it gets. So far, it's exactly what I expect.
Your position seems to be that hesitation to completely changing your position to help black people is evidence of racism when there are 87% of other people to consider and neglecting their racial groups’ wants and needs isn’t racist?
No, my evidence is the arguments that are being used to advocate for gun prevalence, which I already explained in detail.
And when it comes to wants and/or needs, I prioritize stopping needles loss of life over preserving people's hobbies. I don't consider that racist.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
And I have to admit, Trump has said a lot of racist things over the years, but does that really make him completely racist?Being racist means: a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.A lot of people have proven Trumps racist remarks to be more of a political move, rather than an actual racist remark.
Imagine thinking that the guy who rose to political prominence by calling Mexicans rapists and calling for the banning of all Muslims is not a racist.
Moreover, your own definition includes being "antagonistic towards" people of particular racial groups, so that right there makes him a racist by your own admission.
It does not matter what Trump actually believes, that's about what's going on inside of his head. Three only thing we have to judge him by are his words and actions. You're arguing a distinction without a difference.
So, Trump raised it by 8.3 trillion, but Obama raised it by 9 trillion. And I know what you're going to say."Well, Obama had two terms, so if Trump had two terms, then it would have been 16.6 trillion."Well, we don't know that, because he didn't serve two terms. So, you can't assume that.
There is no way you can seriously think this is a good argument.
The debt rose just over $1 trillion per year under Obama and more than $2 trillion per year under Trump. That makes Trump objectively worse by that metric.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
All white people are born racist, and we need to teach them how not to be racist.Communism isn't bad. We will just rename it to Socialism and try to push it in the USA.Joe Biden is not mentally ill.We need to focus on the planet more than our economy.Joe Biden fixed gas prices.If you don't agree with us, then you're a misogynistic racist, sexist, homophobic, fatphobic, terrorist.Two-year-old's are smart enough to understand if they are Gay or not.Gender reassignment surgery and hormone blockers are completely irreversible.Trump is racist.Our borders should stay open, because people need to have the freedom to come and go as they please.School teachers should have more say over kids than their own parents do.We should support pornography in our children's books.Gender is a spectrum.
Somebody watches way too much Fox news.
While a handful of these are accurate, most are such contrived nonsense it really goes to show why republicans win elections despite having no policy platform. It's all about caricaturing the opposition, reality be damned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Why would the political will be there when most people aren’t negatively impacted by guns ever?
I’m not suggesting that anything I’m saying can or even should change the national will on gun violence. But when you take a position you should understand the full extent of the position you’re taking.
It’s kind of like someone eating pork while never having seen a pig get slaughtered. We don’t have to feel guilty about it if we don’t think about it.
My point is that if my portrayal we’re found to be accurate, then a portion of the lack of desire in this country to curb gun violence is attributed the demonization of a group of people as a way of dismissing the victimization the rest of us are subjecting them to.
Created: