Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 01-08-2012, 07:08 AM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Now you're softening your original stance. You said that anti-Semites used to use such cliches as if to suggest some presumption of guilt for the person who uses the If you think that the allegations alone aren't enough to create a judgmental impression on voyeurs, then you're either naive or delusional. Do you really mean to tell me that DSK got what he deserved?

No, I did not. I


All fine in theory. How did that work for DSK? How many people watching thought that he was innocent or should at least reserve judgment? You and I did. Anyone else? And if you were in the same situation do you think you'd say, "Oh well, no one is obliged to believe me despite the fact that I know I'm innocent"?

No, I think you are selective with your attitude towards people alleged with wrongdoing. I recall you rigorously defended DSK during the media trial as if French pride hung in the balance. I might be one of the few Americans who still believes in innocent until proven guilty. Everyone else seems so fucking sure.
I have made every attempt to be as clear as possible but you seem to be unable to understand the distinction between a belief and an action.

Just once more: racism is not a crime. It is a belief, a thought, an attitude, condemned by some or most people in contemporary America and Europe. It can neither be proved nor disproved by what a person says, and therefore nothing a person says (such as "some of my best friends are.....) is of the slightest relevance to deciding whether or not he is a racist, whether he is "guilty" or "innocent" of the charge. That is something known only to the person in question.

Rape is a crime, i.e. an action condemned by the law. DSK was arrested on the suspicion of having committed a crime. His guilt or innocence could only be established by a court of law, weighing all the evidence for and against the charge, to determine if he had or had not committed a crime. I defended the presumption of innocence, and disapproved of the American media which presumed DSK guilty before the evidence could be presented in a court of law.

If you cannot see the difference between racism and rape, between a belief and a crime, there is nothing more that I can say. And nothing more I will say.

Last edited by Florian; 01-08-2012 at 09:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 01-08-2012, 11:34 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post

I did correct you, but you ignored it or intentionally misunderstood it. What makes this particularly weird is that I wasn't even being negative about the libertarian position, which I don't agree with but have some sympathy to, and your pal SK's offense at my position seems to be that I'm accusing libertarians of all being anti-discrimination laws, the direct opposite of your own (perhaps) reading.
I couldn't care less how you feel about the libertarian position. That was not the issue, Stephanie.

Sugarkang has nothing to do with this.

You either mis-stated or poorly stated or got your position backwards and then you irrationally got mad at me. That is what happened.

PS.
Quote:
Quoting stephanie: I did correct you, but you ignored it or intentionally misunderstood it.
I don't know if you corrected me or what, but I do know your reply to my first post directed to you was this:

Quote:
Quoting stephanie: No, I am not saying that and can't see how you got that. This must be
some more of the fake ignorance you glory in.
...which certainly wouldn't encourage anyone to read your stuff with interest...temper, temper.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 01-08-2012 at 12:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 01-08-2012, 03:05 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I couldn't care less how you feel about the libertarian position. That was not the issue, Stephanie.

Sugarkang has nothing to do with this.

You either mis-stated or poorly stated or got your position backwards and then you irrationally got mad at me. That is what happened.

PS.

I don't know if you corrected me or what, but I do know your reply to my first post directed to you was this:



...which certainly wouldn't encourage anyone to read your stuff with interest...temper, temper.
Deeeelicious!!! The contempt, the fact twisting. But the schadenfreude has been overshadowed by a high-larious comedic farce! Do continue badhat, wouldn't miss your next post for the world!

Off the subject (sort of), is anyone else under the impression that badhat often emulates a favorite TV character? One of you already nailed the "simple country lawyer" quality.
I have narrowed it to three options:
1. Jessica Fletcher (murder she wrote)
2. Matlock
3. Judge Judy (minus the respect for factual evidence)

I would reiterate my advice to find your own voice, and own your own stuff,
but that would ruin the show if you did.

"Plain language" for badhat:
Own your stuff means admit mistake.
Find your own voice means be yourself.
Ruin the show means you wouldn't be so fun to engage.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 01-08-2012, 03:19 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
All the pieces are there. Yes, you did misread. It happens.
Your posts, while informative, seem to be expansions of the original misinterpretation. Not that it's all that important. Your point of view is more interesting than what triggered you posting it.

You are correct, I did miss your overall point regarding singularity as a result, but in my defense I was trying to decipher your take on the original point... no excuse, I freely admit (you paying attention BH?).
But I'm sure both of you will stand by your original mistake. And I gotta say this shit is getting funny!
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-08-2012 at 03:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 01-08-2012, 03:46 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
This is what stephanie said: The argument of those more libertarian-inclined (among others, including me) is that when we start doing this, as well as when we start recognizing distinctions as ones deserving of heightened scrutiny by the courts,[it] is not long before when we start recognizing as a society that such discrimination is wrong.

This is what I said: You seem to be saying that libertarians would support non-discrimination laws and that this somehow leads (in some people's minds) to thinking that discrimination is wrong.

I had nothing backwards, although given the way Stephanie usually puts things, it wouldn't take much to get confused. Besides, all she had to do was correct me and maybe we could have come to an understanding. You will notice I started my post with "I'm sorry, I don't understand this". Instead she decided to jump the shark.

PS. But now I see Stephanie subsequently (much later and after she called me a liar and an idiot) changed what she originally wrote and said this:

To simplify -- not that this should be necessary, unless I assume readers are idiots, like badhat seems to like to portray herself -- the libertarian argument is that laws will be passed and rights will be recognized only when society has already turned against the discrimination in question.

She's the one who had it backwards or decided to amend her original statement (see above). I'm not surprised.

Take it or leave it, handle.
But you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Nothing and I mean nothing about your posting a bunch of quotes does anything to prove anything.

If you feel like it, explain my error in simple, starightforward language and then we'll discuss it.
So it's proof when you do it?

Google type phrase correction:
Did you mean:
Quote:
Nothing and I mean nothing about your posting a bunch of quotes does anything to prove anything but if I do the same thing, then it is.
If you feel like it, explain my error in simple, straightforward language and then I'll deny it.
Adding the [it] changed the meaning quote!!!!!! Priceless!!!!
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-08-2012 at 05:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 01-08-2012, 04:03 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
But you said:


Google type phrase correction:
Did you mean:


Adding the [it] changed the meaning quote!!!!!! Priceless!!!!
I guess I now have my answer:
Badhad reads words that are not there to make our posts mean whatever she wants them to mean. It's not dishonesty, it's some sort of affliction.

Hyperlibertextohalucigenia, I'm coining it. And I'm forming a non-profit to combat this dreaded and contagious condition.

Please send your donations to:
Mypaypalaccount@myemailaddress.org

These people, and more importantly, their victims, need your help today!!!
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-08-2012 at 04:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 01-08-2012, 07:49 PM
Ray in Seattle Ray in Seattle is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 441
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
Own your stuff means admit mistake.
"Plain language" for handle:

Own your stuff - also means taking responsibility for your own sloppy thinking / writing.

There are several members here who's comments I usually have to re-read several times and even then I'm not completely certain what they mean. Stephanie is one of those. I try to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she just has a writing style that's difficult for me to read. But in the past even when I've asked politely for a clarification - as Badhat did here - she has reacted rather rudely.

This is a good forum in that there is minimal moderation and yet there are often some pretty good discussions. I suggest it would be even better if people would assume that their first post of any comment is probably not as well stated as it should be. We should all expect to go back and do some editing to be more easily understood. I always assume that if I can't write easily understood comments there's a good chance I don't have a clear idea of what I'm trying to say.
__________________
Self determination for DNA
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 01-08-2012, 08:10 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle View Post
But in the past even when I've asked politely for a clarification - as Badhat did here
To be fair I've explicitly criticized Stephanie's writing style on more than one occasion, so we do have a history. In this case, however, I was really seeking clarification. That didn't work out so well.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 01-08-2012 at 08:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 01-08-2012, 10:10 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
I have made every attempt to be as clear as possible but you seem to be unable to understand the distinction between a belief and an action.
You have made every attempt to dodge the issue.

Quote:
Just once more: racism is not a crime.
...
Rape is a crime, i.e. an action condemned by the law.
Are you going to plant a French flag in celebration of your new discovery?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Acts matter for crimes. Words matter for careers and reputations.
What is it that you purport to teach me? Ceci n'est pas anything fucking new.

Quote:
DSK was arrested on the suspicion of having committed a crime. His guilt or innocence could only be established by a court of law, weighing all the evidence for and against the charge, to determine if he had or had not committed a crime. I defended the presumption of innocence, and disapproved of the American media which presumed DSK guilty before the evidence could be presented in a court of law.
Exactly. And why do you think that it's okay to presume that someone is racist because he says, "Some of my best friends are black"?

Quote:
If you cannot see the difference between racism and rape, between a belief and a crime, there is nothing more that I can say. And nothing more I will say.
If you cannot see inconsistencies in your own logic, then I suggest reading again. It shouldn't be too hard, you know, for someone of your education.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 01-08-2012, 11:44 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 01-09-2012, 05:47 AM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Exactly. And why do you think that it's okay to presume that someone is racist because he says, "Some of my best friends are black"?.
I have answered this so many times that I can only assume you are incapable of reading. When did I say it is "OK" to presume that someone is a racist when he says: "Some of my best friends are.....?" I have repeatedly said that it impossible to infer anything from such a statement, just as it is impossible to infer anything from the statement: "I deny that I am a racist." That doesn't prevent people from making false inferences--- because there are no facts, no objective, externally verifiable facts, to prove whether someone is or is not a racist. I could say, I suppose, I disapprove of people who make false inferences about what other people believe, but since it is impossible to know what is true and what is false in what people say about themselves, I might as well say, I disapprove of life.

In the case of a someone accused of a crime, however, it is not "OK" to make false inferences, as the American media did when DSK was arrested. It is wrong to believe that someone is guilty of a crime for which he has not been tried and found guilty (or innocent), on the basis of objectively established facts.

Quote:
If you cannot see inconsistencies in your own logic, then I suggest reading again. It shouldn't be too hard, you know, for someone of your education.
You have not pointed out a single inconsistency in my logic. I said I would not reply, but as long as you persist in misstating what I said, I will persist in calling you out. If everything I said was so obvious to you, why do you persist in misunderstanding and misrepresenting it?

Last edited by Florian; 01-09-2012 at 06:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 01-09-2012, 07:54 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
I have answered this so many times that I can only assume you are incapable of reading. When did I say it is "OK" to presume that someone is a racist when he says: "Some of my best friends are.....?" I have repeatedly said that it impossible to infer anything from such a statement, just as it is impossible to infer anything from the statement: "I deny that I am a racist." That doesn't prevent people from making false inferences--- because there are no facts, no objective, externally verifiable facts, to prove whether someone is or is not a racist. I could say, I suppose, I disapprove of people who make false inferences about what other people believe, but since it is impossible to know what is true and what is false in what people say about themselves, I might as well say, I disapprove of life.

In the case of a someone accused of a crime, however, it is not "OK" to make false inferences, as the American media did when DSK was arrested. It is wrong to believe that someone is guilty of a crime for which he has not been tried and found guilty (or innocent), on the basis of objectively established facts.



You have not pointed out a single inconsistency in my logic. I said I would not reply, but as long as you persist in misstating what I said, I will persist in calling you out. If everything I said was so obvious to you, why do you persist in misunderstanding and misrepresenting it?
It looks like the two of you are trying to compare cases that are both similar and different. In general terms, these are situations where someone is being blamed/accused for having a certain attitude or belief or prejudice/having committed a crime.

Sugarkang is focusing on the similarities: a case of a false accusation, accusation without enough evidence, blaming someone for something that may not be true.

You are focusing in the differences:

1. in one case we are talking about blaming someone for a belief or prejudice (which is not a crime) and in the other for an action ( in this case a crime). This is a difference in magnitude of the wrong and the quality (censurable belief vs criminal action).

2. In the case of the belief or prejudice, the "evidence" to support the blaming may or may not be present, since we're relying on the person's statements and we don't have direct access to what he/she really believes (inside his/her mind). And in any case, not having any standards to evaluate other people's possible prejudice, the "accusers" go by their own personal standards about what constitutes the prejudice. In the case of a crime, there are standards, defined by the justice system, as to what constitutes appropriate level of evidence (proof), without which it would be incorrect to blame the accused.

Anyhow, you can continue to discuss until the end of times, I just wanted to throw in the view of your discussion from a distance.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 01-09-2012, 09:59 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
I have answered this so many times that I can only assume you are incapable of reading. When did I say it is "OK" to presume that someone is a racist when he says: "Some of my best friends are.....?" I have repeatedly said that it impossible to infer anything from such a statement, just as it is impossible to infer anything from the statement: "I deny that I am a racist."
No, you started saying it was "impossible to infer" when I started pressing you on the issue. This is a walk back from what you previously said. Let's see what you said (highlighted for your pleasure):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
You nailed it. Using a cliché that is almost universally understood to imply that the speaker is being less than candid, that he may in fact harbor racist feelings, defeats the purpose of communication. This cliché was once a favorite of anti-semites. You would have to be tone-deaf to language usage and history to use it with a straight face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
Everything is in the tone, isn't it? An ironic wink, a nod of the head, and voilà you disarm suspicion. Don't you think sophisticated Europeans can be ironic too? But the mere fact that you have to use irony to make the cliché acceptable means that the cliché IS understood to be racist.
To sum up, in more or less your words, a cliche that is almost universally understood to imply that the speaker may in fact harbor racist feelings means, in your words, that it is impossible to infer that he is racist?

Why, you would have to be tone-deaf to language usage to say this with a straight face.

Quote:
You have not pointed out a single inconsistency in my logic.
I just did, though I don't expect you to see it. Perhaps, you'll see this:



And if you were scared, maybe you should ask yourself if you are racist.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.

Last edited by sugarkang; 01-09-2012 at 10:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 01-09-2012, 10:22 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! Tell me what's in the circle. I need to know.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 01-09-2012, 10:55 AM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
No, you started saying it was "impossible to infer" when I started pressing you on the issue. This is a walk back from what you previously said. Let's see what you said (highlighted for your pleasure):





To sum up, in more or less your words, a cliche that is almost universally understood to imply that the speaker may in fact harbor racist feelings means, in your words, that it is impossible to infer that he is racist?

Why, you would have to be tone-deaf to language usage to say this with a straight face.



I just did, though I don't expect you to see it. Perhaps, you'll see this:



And if you were scared, maybe you should ask yourself if you are racist.
The fact that a cliché is almost universally understood to imply racism does not mean that it is right to infer that someone who uses it is racist. And I never said it was right , or in your words, that it is OK, to make the inference. I said it is impossible to infer anything, one way or another. So go stuff it, pitiful nitwit.

Last edited by Florian; 01-09-2012 at 10:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 01-09-2012, 11:09 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle View Post
But in the past even when I've asked politely for a clarification - as Badhat did here - she has reacted rather rudely.
I don't recall this at all. Mostly I remember talking with you about topics that are sufficiently complicated that I wouldn't consider a request for clarification at all strange.

But then the idea that I reacted with anger to badhat's misinterpretation of my comment (which I did not perceive as a request for clarification at all) is strange to me.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 01-09-2012, 11:28 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
But then the idea that I reacted with anger to badhat's misinterpretation of my comment (which I did not perceive as a request for clarification at all) is strange to me.
Strange but true: No, I am not saying that and can't see how you got that. This must be some more of the fake ignorance you glory in.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 01-09-2012, 11:29 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
You asked me how a person charged with racism (suspected of racism) should defend himself. I answered your question: He can't. If you see a flaw in my reasoning, let me know.
I think you are right.

However, the silliness here is that "some of my best friends are..." is necessary as a defense, given the points miceelf has made.

It's going to be taken as a dodge.

On the other hand, presumably there is some background to the racism accusation -- in Paul's case, the newsletters -- and rather than dodging that with "I have black friends" or "I'm against the drug war" it would seem to make more sense to address the basis of the accusation head on.

You may or may not convince the accusing person, but it seems obvious that the defense -- if one wishes to make one -- should relate to the actual reasons for the accusation.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 01-09-2012, 11:31 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Strange but true: No, I am not saying that and can't see how you got that. This must be some more of the fake ignorance you glory in.
Not anger. Just stating it as I saw it.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 01-09-2012, 11:34 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Not anger. Just stating it as I saw it.
yeah, you're the best judge of your own emotional state.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 01-09-2012, 11:37 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
yeah, you're the best judge of your own emotional state.
In comparison to you (and everyone else), whose only perception of that is mediated by a text-only interface?
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 01-09-2012, 05:47 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle View Post
"Plain language" for handle:

Own your stuff - also means taking responsibility for your own sloppy thinking / writing.

There are several members here who's comments I usually have to re-read several times and even then I'm not completely certain what they mean. Stephanie is one of those. I try to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she just has a writing style that's difficult for me to read. But in the past even when I've asked politely for a clarification - as Badhat did here - she has reacted rather rudely.

This is a good forum in that there is minimal moderation and yet there are often some pretty good discussions. I suggest it would be even better if people would assume that their first post of any comment is probably not as well stated as it should be. We should all expect to go back and do some editing to be more easily understood. I always assume that if I can't write easily understood comments there's a good chance I don't have a clear idea of what I'm trying to say.
I would be right with you neighbor Ray, except this was just one more instance in a string of misreadings, misinterpretations, and declarations of confusion by the subject. She, has developed a reputation for this type of behavior. Hence the lack of patience by others in dealing with it.
After this exchange, which may seem frivolous to most reading it, I believe I now understand she is not faking.
I was in the process of figuring this out while posting that which you responded to here.
Reading my subsequent posts down the page (if you are in threaded mode..VB rocks!) might clarify my conclusions on this.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-10-2012 at 02:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 01-09-2012, 06:23 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
As to your libertarian argument, you are correct that some libertarians hold those views.
Quote:
The very mention of race, religion, gender or age in law is per se discrimination. So, when liberals say they favor "anti-discrimination" they mean to say that they favor pro-discriminatory legislation that leads to less-discriminatory outcomes.
No, this is wrong. The laws in question are racially neutral. (We are talking about anti-discrimination laws, not Affirmative Action.) The argument against them is that we don't generally legislate why people can be fired or not hired. Generally, employers can be totally arbitrary, so in singling out a few reasons that people cannot be fired/not hired we are moving away from this general principle. Plus, it gives a basis to sue.

Quote:
We see this line of reasoning in much of the legislation they propose. A flat tax would treat everyone equally, but equal treatment wouldn't be fair. In other words, they favor social engineering and to some extent I agree with them. I think we all know why.
Technically, a flat tax wouldn't treat everyone equally. People who make more would still pay more. But I don't have much problem defending the idea that that's fair and that it's similarly fair to tax income above various amounts at higher rates.

Quote:
On the whole, I don't find it conclusively persuasive, but I think there's some merit to the argument. I believe Ron Paul thinks along these lines.
I don't think you need to make it so complicated. Ron Paul seems pretty comfortable asserting that he doesn't think freedom of contract should be interfered with. It seems a classically libertarian position. (Which, obviously, does not mean that every libertarian shares it.) It's not especially different in principle from the "liberalism" expressed by the activist SC in the early part of the 20th c which led to laws about working conditions (minimum wage, maximum hours, age) getting struck down.

IMO, Paul's problem isn't that he was against the Civil Rights Act, although I disagree with him and his rationale. I disagree with libertarians who take that position, but it seems to me not a racist position, just an unrealistic one that demonstrates different priorities than I like in a candidate. (I think this is what Glenn Loury was saying in saying the position deserved to be taken seriously, even when he went on to disagree with it.) It's that he tried to use that position and his agreement about the federal gov't, states rights, so on, to attract support from awful people and hasn't stood up and acknowledged it or said it was wrong.

Too bad, since it's hard not to like the guy somewhat.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 01-09-2012, 06:59 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
In comparison to you (and everyone else), whose only perception of that is mediated by a text-only interface?
yep
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 01-09-2012, 09:56 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
The fact that a cliché is almost universally understood to imply racism does not mean that it is right to infer that someone who uses it is racist. And I never said it was right , or in your words, that it is OK, to make the inference. I said it is impossible to infer anything, one way or another. So go stuff it, pitiful nitwit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
To sum up, in more or less your words, a cliche that is almost universally understood to imply that the speaker may in fact harbor racist feelings means, in your words, that it is impossible to infer that he is racist?

Why, you would have to be tone-deaf to language usage to say this with a straight face.
One more time for good measure.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 01-10-2012, 08:01 AM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
One more time for good measure.
One more measure of your incredible obtuseness.

If you cannot understand the difference between saying that a cliché is almost universally understood to imply something (i.e. that many people infer something from it) and saying that the inference is in fact invalid because it is impossible* to infer what someone believes from what he says, there is nothing I can do to help you.

People make false inferences about what others think or believe all the time. You are guilty of it in this exchange, for example. You infer from the fact that I said that many people make the above invalid inference that I must believe it to be a valid inference.


*Or at least very difficult when you know little about a person, and the belief concerns something like race.

Last edited by Florian; 01-10-2012 at 08:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 01-10-2012, 04:56 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
yep
It's not sarcasm if you mean it.

Sorry, that was wrong of me to chastise the afflicted.

Keep those donations coming in folks!
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-10-2012 at 05:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 01-10-2012, 06:24 PM
Ray in Seattle Ray in Seattle is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 441
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I'm quite sure there are racist impulses and perhaps even racist policies, even though I think most of them have been expunged. What I despise is the using of the charge as a weapon. And I also despise that there are some people who want to keep the practice alive for their own unsavory purposes.
This is a great discussion IMO. I've been trying to get a grasp on it in terms of my own views and this part of your comment gave me a kick - if you don't mind me using it as a jump off point. I'm actually commenting on both threads I think.

I see "racism" as a fear or animosity toward some racially (or often ethnically) different group. (Although it can also be an emotional affection for one's own group at the expense of others.) In that regard it is firstly (and essentially) an emotional reaction - and therefore can cause behavior. By observing someone's behavior you can get clues as to their underlying emotions - be they racist or not.

But it's not so clear cut. Every situation in our life causes several emotions to appear and some of those will compete. Behavior always follow the predominant emotional signals at any moment. That means . .

Someone could have some racist emotions toward certain groups but they could have a stronger emotional fear of being seen as a racist. And so any noticeably "racist" behavior or statements would be suppressed in most cases. Likewise if they had a strong emotional commitment simply to treating others charitable unless they show themselves to have animosity toward you.

Racist "views" are not the same as racist emotions (that cause behavior). When someone says they are not racist they are stating a view. That (stating that view) is itself a behavior. In our culture such behavior is typically driven by the emotional desire to be seen as a "good person" - regardless of any underlying racist emotions. i.e. It may or may not be an accurate reflection of that person's underlying emotion reactions to various racial groups - which is a separate thing.

In a forum like this we can only state our "views" about our own or others' supposed racism. For that reason such discussions are really about what we want others to see and believe about our views - and what they want us to believe about their views on the topic. This has almost nothing to do with any actual racism (or lack of racism) on the part of those discussing it - which are emotional reactions that they may or may not suppress in any real-life instance - or in their forum comments.

***********************

Long story short - there is a belief being expressed in most of these comments that a persons' supposed "racism" is something that can be known by what they say about it to others. The only thing that can be known by such statements is what the person wishes others to believe about them in that regard - which can be a very different thing.

************************

Finally, we are all racists. Our brains are designed to notice any patterns in our environment that could affect our survival. For a few million years now other humans have been one of the greatest threats to human lives generally. And so we are especially sensitive to recognizing other humans (in identifiable groups of any kind) as either possible allies or enemies. Whenever we notice any human in an identifiable category our brain automatically tries to put them in the friend or enemy group. Knowing if they are a potential friend or an enemy makes us feel more secure than if we don't.

For example, if we have noticed - even say on TV shows - that black guys in gangs are often depicted in situations as dangerous to white guys in their hood - then if you were a white guy and found yourself by accident walking alone along a street in a black hood - you would experience a "racist" emotional reaction. You would experience some level of fear and your body would prepare to make a fight or flight decision. And no amount of thinking or "views" that you held about racism would be able to overcome those emotions.

But that's just how our brains are designed. Even if we believe ourselves to be absolutely not-racist - "racist" emotions , such as noticing differences in racial groups and trying to categorize them, can appear in any of us under the right conditions. That doesn't mean we are "racists" as most are using the term here. It just means we're human.

I reserve racist to mean someone who acts in a way to hurt others in a different racial group - simply because of their race and with no reasonable (defensive) justification.
__________________
Self determination for DNA

Last edited by Ray in Seattle; 01-10-2012 at 06:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 01-10-2012, 07:52 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
It's not sarcasm if you mean it.

Sorry, that was wrong of me to chastise the afflicted.

Keep those donations coming in folks!
What isn't sarcasm if you mean it? It would seem to me that sarcasm is always meant as sarcasm. It's a purely volitional form of communication.

And just in case I misread your comment, which is always possible because I often don't quite get your meaning...my answer to Jeff was not sarcastic.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 01-10-2012, 07:56 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle View Post
This is a great discussion IMO.
So the discussions go on full tilt in the hidden forum. I need to go to a play rehearsal but this looks like an interesting post that I'll surely delve into when I return. Cheers!
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 01-10-2012, 08:00 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
So the discussions go on full tilt in the hidden forum. I need to go to a play rehearsal but this looks like an interesting post that I'll surely delve into when I return. Cheers!
What part are you playing?
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 01-10-2012, 08:23 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
What isn't sarcasm if you mean it? It would seem to me that sarcasm is always meant as sarcasm. It's a purely volitional form of communication.

And just in case I misread your comment, which is always possible because I often don't quite get your meaning...my answer to Jeff was not sarcastic.
I was giving you a hard time because SK says nobody gets your "sarcasm".

What I meant is, it isn't sarcasm if you literally meant exactly what you typed.

You claim to be a better judge of Stephanie's emotional condition than she is through a text only interface, as Jeff pointed out, so the joke is one would assume your affirmation to be sarcastic (ala SK) due to it's absurd nature, but it's pretty obvious you weren't.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-10-2012 at 08:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 01-11-2012, 12:39 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by graz View Post
What part are you playing?
Julia
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 01-11-2012 at 10:10 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 01-11-2012, 12:46 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by handle View Post
You claim to be a better judge of Stephanie's emotional condition than she is through a text only interface, as Jeff pointed out...
Great! you were giving me a hard time because of something SK said. Do you attempt to make any sense at all, ever?

I don't claim to be a better judge of Stephanie's emotional condition than she is. I said she seemed angry and gave her an example of why I thought this was so. She said she wasn't angry and that she was merely expressing the facts as she saw them. I responded she would be the best judge of her emotional state (everyone is, you know) and left it at that. I wasn't being sarcastic.

You, on the other hand, habitually claim to know exactly what I'm thinking and feeling. And you are habitually wrong but that never stops you.

Leave me alone. You're a crazy man.

Or much better, I'll take control and just stop reading your posts. I kept giving them another try, thinking there might be something to them. But I'll be stopping now.

Cheers!
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 01-11-2012 at 12:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 01-11-2012, 10:09 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

So there's a lot here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle View Post

I see "racism" as a fear or animosity toward some racially (or often ethnically) different group. (Although it can also be an emotional affection for one's own group at the expense of others.) In that regard it is firstly (and essentially) an emotional reaction - and therefore can cause behavior. By observing someone's behavior you can get clues as to their underlying emotions - be they racist or not.
OK

Quote:
But it's not so clear cut. Every situation in our life causes several emotions to appear and some of those will compete. Behavior always follow the predominant emotional signals at any moment. That means . .

Someone could have some racist emotions toward certain groups but they could have a stronger emotional fear of being seen as a racist. And so any noticeably "racist" behavior or statements would be suppressed in most cases. Likewise if they had a strong emotional commitment simply to treating others charitable unless they show themselves to have animosity toward you.
My dad slapped me in the face one time when I was on the fronts step with friends chosing 'it' for tag by using eeeny meeeny miney moe. I didn't even know what a ****** was. But later when I was an adult, he told me he didn't particularly like the colored.

Quote:
In a forum like this we can only state our "views" about our own or others' supposed racism. For that reason such discussions are really about what we want others to see and believe about our views - and what they want us to believe about their views on the topic. This has almost nothing to do with any actual racism (or lack of racism) on the part of those discussing it - which are emotional reactions that they may or may not suppress in any real-life instance - or in their forum comments.
I wonder if part of it may be wanting to see oneself in one way or another or convince oneself that one is some way or another.

Quote:
Long story short - there is a belief being expressed in most of these comments that a persons' supposed "racism" is something that can be known by what they say about it to others. The only thing that can be known by such statements is what the person wishes others to believe about them in that regard - which can be a very different thing.
Except that in days past when it was honorable to be racist certainly what one said about being racist was probably true. So maybe there's a different dynamic when some behavior or view isn't socially acceptable. But how would it have been for some guy in the south who had friendly feelings towards blacks but had to pretend that he did not?

Quote:
Finally, we are all racists. Our brains are designed to notice any patterns in our environment that could affect our survival. For a few million years now other humans have been one of the greatest threats to human lives generally. And so we are especially sensitive to recognizing other humans (in identifiable groups of any kind) as either possible allies or enemies. Whenever we notice any human in an identifiable category our brain automatically tries to put them in the friend or enemy group. Knowing if they are a potential friend or an enemy makes us feel more secure than if we don't.
Have you ever heard of HADD? hyperactive agency detection device? Not exactly what you describe above but maybe part of the phenomenon?

Quote:
For example, if we have noticed - even say on TV shows - that black guys in gangs are often depicted in situations as dangerous to white guys in their hood - then if you were a white guy and found yourself by accident walking alone along a street in a black hood - you would experience a "racist" emotional reaction. You would experience some level of fear and your body would prepare to make a fight or flight decision. And no amount of thinking or "views" that you held about racism would be able to overcome those emotions.
I have an actual experience. I was at a bar with some friends on the South side of Chicago. It came time to go and I realized I was going to have to take the bus home. No problem. I got on the bus and we were passing through some of the black neighborhoods that were so prevalent (and probably still are) back then. I had been drinking beer and really needed to debark...which I did, at a gas station. The bathroom was locked. I went to the office and the man there looked very surprised to see me walk in out of nowhere asking for the key. He said "no", but deep down I knew he was just kidding me. So I put on my very best frantic female face (with a touch of irony so he knew I knew where he was coming from) and he gave me the key and minutes later I was back on the bus.

I can remember feeling quite proud that I had pulled that off. And I also remember that I was never really afraid. But then I suppose it would be different if I had been a guy. And I was very aware that the guy was black and that I was white as I'm sure he was.

Quote:
I reserve racist to mean someone who acts in a way to hurt others in a different racial group - simply because of their race [B]and with no reasonable (defensive) justification[/B
This sounds like a good practice.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 01-11-2012 at 12:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 01-11-2012, 12:13 PM
Ray in Seattle Ray in Seattle is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 441
Default Re: LOL

Great way to wake up this morning. Checked BHTV first thing and there's your idea-rich comment. While thinking about it I made the coffee and fed the cat - and so now I can get into it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
My dad slapped me in the face one time when I was on the fronts step with friends chosing 'it' for tag by using eeeny meeeny miney moe. I didn't even know what a ****** was. But later when I was an adult, he told me he didn't particularly like the colored.
My wife's father was also inclined to slap her around - especially for "sassing" as she explains it. He was also quite openly racist especially re: "negroes". She is a member of a Seattle play-writing / producing group. I wonder if there's some connection lol

Quote:
I wonder if part of it may be wanting to see oneself in one way or another or convince oneself that one is some way or another.
You bet. As you know, in my amateur-psychologist way I've been trying to understand behavior as the result of what I call emotional forces or urges that spontaneously arise in the brain to situations we encounter. Two major categories of these forces are what I call social-identity (a desire to have others see us as the kind of person our society respects and admires) and personal-identity (a desire to see ourselves as the kind of person we respect and admire in ourselves). The former is about what others perceive in us (an honor / shame dimension); the latter is about what we see in ourselves (a dimension of integrity). I suspect these are distributed within and across cultures like other psychological bell-curve variables. These are what we recognize as both individual personality and the personality of particular cultures.

I think both of those are huge determinants of behavior (sources of the forces that shape our behavior). But since we can choose to ignore transgressions that only we know about - but can't easily escape how others see and judge us - the social identity emotions probably have more power to shape our behavior in most situations. And so we have evolved to be inherently tribal creatures.

Added: I am currently reading a book that shows these tribal forces at work in a very vivid way: "Murder in the Name of Honor" by Rana Husseini, a Jordanian writer/journalist.
__________________
Self determination for DNA

Last edited by Ray in Seattle; 01-11-2012 at 01:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 01-11-2012, 12:22 PM
Ray in Seattle Ray in Seattle is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 441
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Except that in days past when it was honorable to be racist certainly what one said about being racist was probably true. So maybe there's a different dynamic when some behavior or view isn't socially acceptable. But how would it have been for some guy in the south who had friendly feelings towards blacks but had to pretend that he did not?
I grew up in the South from age seven through fifteen. I lived where it was "honorable" to be racist - yet coming from the north I had little or no previous exposure to those social behavior-shaping forces. You learn to smile at the racist jokes told by other kids or adults - just enough to maintain your cover. Wanting to be accepted by the other kids can be a huge force when you're young. Even so that didn't always work out as some kids called me "yankee" or "damned yankee" anyway - and not always in just a joking around way - although it would always get a laugh from the gang.
__________________
Self determination for DNA
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 01-11-2012, 12:29 PM
Ray in Seattle Ray in Seattle is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 441
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Have you ever heard of HADD? hyperactive agency detection device? Not exactly what you describe above but maybe part of the phenomenon?
Yeah I think it is. Fascinating website.


Quote:
I have an actual experience. I was at a bar with some friends on the South side of Chicago. It came time to go and I realized I was going to have to take the bus home. No problem. I got on the bus and we were passing through some of the black neighborhoods that were so prevalent (and probably still are) back then. I had been drinking beer and really needed to debark...which I did, at a gas station. The bathroom was locked. I went to the office and the man there looked very surprised to see me walk in out of nowhere asking for the key. He said "no", but deep down I knew he was just kidding me. So I put on my very best frantic female face (with a touch of irony so he knew I knew where he was coming from) and he gave me the key and minutes later I was back on the bus.

I can remember feeling quite proud that I had pulled that off. And I also remember that I was never really afraid. But then I suppose it would be different if I had been a guy. And I was very aware that the guy was black and that I was white as I'm sure he was.
"But then I suppose it would be different if I had been a guy." You would have just peed on the dumpster.
__________________
Self determination for DNA

Last edited by Ray in Seattle; 01-11-2012 at 02:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 01-11-2012, 01:50 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Great! you were giving me a hard time because of something SK said. Do you attempt to make any sense at all, ever?

I don't claim to be a better judge of Stephanie's emotional condition than she is. I said she seemed angry and gave her an example of why I thought this was so. She said she wasn't angry and that she was merely expressing the facts as she saw them. I responded she would be the best judge of her emotional state (everyone is, you know) and left it at that. I wasn't being sarcastic.

You, on the other hand, habitually claim to know exactly what I'm thinking and feeling. And you are habitually wrong but that never stops you.

Leave me alone. You're a crazy man.

Or much better, I'll take control and just stop reading your posts. I kept giving them another try, thinking there might be something to them. But I'll be stopping now.

Cheers!
Poor badhat, the snark only runs one way. And when you turn off the sarcasm everyone is crazy for not knowing. Couldn't tell from here, anyway, crazy man that I am. So SK is full of shit about the "sarcasm" eh? That was more the point, sorry you got in the middle. Wouldn't want to lump you in with the other born again libertarians, I know what it's like to be lumped in with assumed like minded posters (Beavis and Butthead? really?). I was leaning a little more to the right after my hiatus from politics, but you set me straight! Who ever snarks at you is of the other team.

Great sell on the victimhood though. I'm a big mean stalker man and I'm ashamed to be alive now. SARCASM ALERT!

If you don't manage to "take control", cheers to you too!


Oh, and don't forget your other fall back position:

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
I guess lots of words signifying nothing pretty much sums up the progressive narrative.
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell

Last edited by handle; 01-11-2012 at 03:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 01-11-2012, 08:19 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray in Seattle View Post
My wife's father was also inclined to slap her around - especially for "sassing" as she explains it. He was also quite openly racist especially re: "negroes". She is a member of a Seattle play-writing / producing group. I wonder if there's some connection
I think I may have given the wrong impression. My dad rarely punished me, although there were many times I deserved it. That's why this was such a shock. To his credit, I think he wanted to be sure I never used such a vile word. Neither do I think that he was a racist...certainly not in an extraordinary way. But I could be being defensive.

I've known very few white racists in my life. In fact, one of the few racial incidents I've ever witnessed, complete with racial invective, was between some Mexican kids and a couple of black guys walking with a white girl.

The reason for this, of course, is that I have no racist tendencies so nothing racially unseemly ever happens in my sphere.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.