Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Riots Racism FascismFollow

#52 Jul 23 2020 at 7:10 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
No. I'm saying that you can't know what is happening inside someone else's head. You can't read their thoughts. You can only judge them based on actions. I'm countering the idea that since *we* associate a symbol with support for racism doesn't mean that the person displaying that symbol does, and thus can't assume that person is somehow declaring their racism when doing so.

We can and should only conclude someone is a racist if they actually engage in an act of racism.


So you concur that what makes a person racist isn't them doing racist things, but having racist beliefs? Behavior without known intent cannot conclude that a person is racist. Even if a person were to say you stupid [insert race] person, you cannot conclude that the individual is racist. However, given historical context, it is safe to assume that in certain situations.

Gbaji wrote:
And again, flying a flag doesn't do that.

Read above.

Gbaji wrote:
Um. That it's overwhelmingly going to be seen as art. Admittedly, art that may not be appropriate for all ages (which is itself a social more), but still art. No one would conclude that displaying such a picture (say in your home) means you are a sexist, or racist, or bigot of any kind. We could conclude that you perhaps find beauty in the human form and sexuality.

You kinda picked a weird example there. That's also not a "symbol", so kinda falls outside this discussion.


No I didn't. You just picked a weird counter. You said "appropriate for all ages" as if it is appropriate to have that "art" at work, in a business, school, public display or anywhere other than in your own privacy. It is irrelevant that you think it is appropriate if that is not how society sees it.

Gbaji wrote:
This is at least a bit closer, because words in language have accepted meanings, which is a step more specific than those of symbols, which may have many different meanings. So closer, but still not quite right.
Ooooh, so close, but no cigar. Not only is language just as fluid as symbology (hence why I like math), definitions are created by wide social acceptance.

For the sake of argument, let's put that aside. If I create a symbol to represent me, you can cherry pick which part of me that the symbol represents to you. However, you cannot deny that the symbol represents me, which includes the good and the bad. This is just like those "nice people" who turn out to be a serial murderer/rapist or terrorists, etc. Your personal interpretation doesn't negate facts.


***** Edit*****

Just to clarify, in my cowgirl example, I didn't mean a drawing. I meant an actual picture of a woman and a man. I am confident that would not be "overwhelmingly" considered as "art".

Edited, Jul 24th 2020 1:25pm by Almalieque
#53 Jul 30 2020 at 5:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You're free to ignore my actual point and go off on a strange historical tangent

I literally answered the question you asked. But you wouldn't be you if you weren't playing the crying martyr.


And I literally responded to you. Then you completely ignored my response and instead went off on some bizarre rant about other, unrelated things.

My entire point here is to point out that if a group of extremists, who maybe at their height made up like .1% of the population of the US, decides that a symbol means something entirely different than what a much larger percentage of the US population believes (probably closer to say 20% back in the mid 20th century), why are you allowing the fringe group's opinion to color your own? You're giving the fringe power when you do that.

I could make a supposition that perhaps the racial activists, as time went on, and signs of actual obvious racism declined steadily in our society, instead of taking that as a good thing, instead have proceeded to look even harder at anything that might be racism if viewed through enough convoluted steps so that they can continue to march to the same banner. So we suddenly have "institutional racism", and "systemic racism" (which apparently, is racism that can't be seen, nor can you find direct examples of it, but we just know it exists!), and symbols like the battle flag, which is overwhelmingly flown by people who don't see any racial connotation to it at all, now really means that those people are secretly racist, or support racism, or... well... something nefarious. We're sure of it!

And hey, white privilege, right? So even if you don't engage is racial discrimination, and you don't see where you've benefited from it, it doesn't matter because we just assume that you did, and you're complicit if you don't yourself give in to guilt over your unfairly gained advantages and "join the cause", or something. Um... Isn't this all a bit contrived and ridiculous? I think so.

We've institutionalized activism. And this is the result. When there's not enough enemy to fight, you have to create one. Otherwise, your army disbands and you lost power. That's what this is really about. And sorry, I'm not buying into it. It's a BS political narrative that has very very little to do with actually opposing racism and much more about creating artificial divisions in our society so that we can create conflicts and build support for "our side". It's not like this is a new concept.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Jul 30 2020 at 6:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So you concur that what makes a person racist isn't them doing racist things, but having racist beliefs? Behavior without known intent cannot conclude that a person is racist. Even if a person were to say you stupid [insert race] person, you cannot conclude that the individual is racist. However, given historical context, it is safe to assume that in certain situations.


Mostly. It has to be something that's pretty clearly racist, or racially discriminatory for us to conclude anything about the person's beliefs though. So your example of someone making a specific comment about someone's race in connection to a derogatory statement about that person is an indicator that they may hold said beliefs.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
And again, flying a flag doesn't do that.

Read above.


What? Where I said that flying a flag doesn't do that? You have to assume that the person flying the flag doesn't see it as the completely non-racially connected symbol which it has been for the vast majority of people who have ever flown it and instead assume that they are part of an incredibly small percentage of people who use it as a symbol of their racism instead, Now, if you had a picture of someone at a white power rally, flying said flag, we might conclude that that person is part of that small percentage and is probably a racist.

But without any other clear statements or actions indicating racist beliefs, just flying that flag itself does not allow us to draw that conclusion. Hence, my response to the claim that folks flying that flag at a tea party rally being "clearly racist" is false. The only bias we can be sure of there is in the person making that claim, not the person flying the flag.

Quote:
No I didn't. You just picked a weird counter. You said "appropriate for all ages" as if it is appropriate to have that "art" at work, in a business, school, public display or anywhere other than in your own privacy. It is irrelevant that you think it is appropriate if that is not how society sees it.


Art can be inappropriate for some ages and social situations, based solely on our own social mores. That does not make it not art.

Quote:
For the sake of argument, let's put that aside. If I create a symbol to represent me, you can cherry pick which part of me that the symbol represents to you. However, you cannot deny that the symbol represents me, which includes the good and the bad. This is just like those "nice people" who turn out to be a serial murderer/rapist or terrorists, etc. Your personal interpretation doesn't negate facts.


Right. But I don't get to decide that since I don't like you that I'll just apply a negative label to you (say racist), and then tell everyone that your symbol is a symbol of racism. Right? I'd need to actually show that you engage in racist behavior, not just have a symbol that someone else claims is a symbol of racism.

That's the relevance here. Someone *else* says that flag is a symbol of racism. And that's not the person flying it in that rally that were started this conversation talking about.


Quote:
Just to clarify, in my cowgirl example, I didn't mean a drawing. I meant an actual picture of a woman and a man. I am confident that would not be "overwhelmingly" considered as "art".


You must not know many artists. You'd be "overwhelmingly" wrong in your assessment.

While obviously there's some variation of the specific definition of art, to me anything which is created with the purpose of being enjoyed by a third party but has no other utilitarian purpose is "art". Doesn't matter what it is. And guess what? Pornography absolutely falls into that category. It often also falls into the heading of "obscene", which is a legal definition which allows such material to be regulated to some degree (specifically where it falls into public view, or where people who are not seeking it out may encounter it and be offended). So while that means you'll probably run afoul of some local ordinance if you put said cowgirl picture on a billboard, or prominently displayed to your neighbors, that picture is still art.

And in any case, they say that art is in the eye of the beholder right? So if someone prints out said picture and puts it on the wall in their bedroom, it's art to them, right? Who are you or I to say otherwise?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Jul 30 2020 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And I literally responded to you. Then you completely ignored my response and instead went off on some bizarre rant about other, unrelated things.

I'm sorry that you're easily confused and it's hard for you to balance history and your insane spin about why carrying racist symbols of oppression and white supremacy is really okay if you just pretend real hard. It must be hard living inside your head.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#56 Jul 30 2020 at 8:02 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
What? Where I said that flying a flag doesn't do that?
No, my previous comment. My comment above applies to flying a flag.

Gbaji wrote:
Right. But I don't get to decide that since I don't like you that I'll just apply a negative label to you (say racist), and then tell everyone that your symbol is a symbol of racism. Right? I'd need to actually show that you engage in racist behavior, not just have a symbol that someone else claims is a symbol of racism.

That's the relevance here. Someone *else* says that flag is a symbol of racism. And that's not the person flying it in that rally that were started this conversation talking about.
If you say a person is your role model, you accept the good, bad and the ugly. If people want to focus on the negative, then you should be prepared to defend that or find another role model.

As I pointed out with the pr0.n example, just because you want to see it differently than the rest of the society, it doesn't change anything.

Gbaji wrote:
You must not know many artists. You'd be "overwhelmingly" wrong in your assessment.
You must not know many fire wall rules, Internet usage policies or FCC laws. Yes, but let's pretend you can freely look at pr0.n at work, at school, etc. and as long as you view it as "art", it's ok.
#57 Jul 31 2020 at 12:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
What? Where I said that flying a flag doesn't do that?
No, my previous comment. My comment above applies to flying a flag.


No. You gave an example of someone using a racial slur towards someone being an indication that said person is a racist. That is *not* the same as waving a flag. It's pretty clear what someone means when they say "that guy is a lazy crackhead like all f'in N**ggers!" while referring to a black man. Not a lot of interpretation to make there, right? When someone waves a flag, you might think it means one thing, while the person waving the flag thinks it means something else.

You're literally ignoring the entire argument I'm making and just insisting that there is one and only one reason one might wave that flag. But if you'd stop and actually talk to people who do wave that flag, or have that flags symbol on mugs, bumper stickers, etc, you'll find that they see a very different meaning to it, that has nothing at all to do with racism or slavery or support for the Confederacy and its ideals.

Quote:
If you say a person is your role model, you accept the good, bad and the ugly. If people want to focus on the negative, then you should be prepared to defend that or find another role model.


A person isn't a flag though. As you said, people have many attributes, some may be externally subjective (ie: the opinion of others about that person), but many are going to be objective properties of that person (physical, emotional, intellectual, etc). Your point applies to the objective properties, but not to the subjective. You may hate someone for some personal reason, yet that same person may have friends, be married, have children who love them, etc. You would be pretty foolish to run around constantly wondering why these people can like that person who is clearly a horrible terrible person. I mean, you can do that, but you'd be wasting your own time doing so.

Similar deal with a flag, except it's 100% subjective opinion. It's symbol. That's all it can be. It's meaning is derived by the individual and what they believe that flag represents. You can have your opinion of its meaning, but just as you can't impose your own feelings of dislike for a person on other people, you can't impose your meaning for a flag on other people. You kinda have to accept that their reasons for flying a flag are their reasons and that they are honest reasons.

I mean, you could assume that they really secretly agree with you that it's a symbol of racism and slavery and are just pretending so as to pull one over on you or something. But that's as foolish as assuming that the guy you hate's wife and children and friends really secretly hate him just as much as you and are also just pretending to like/love him.

Um... That's you being really really stupid.

Quote:
As I pointed out with the pr0.n example, just because you want to see it differently than the rest of the society, it doesn't change anything.


There's no homogeneous "rest of society" though. You're kinda assuming that everyone agrees with your interpretation, while that is clearly not the case.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
You must not know many artists. You'd be "overwhelmingly" wrong in your assessment.
You must not know many fire wall rules, Internet usage policies or FCC laws. Yes, but let's pretend you can freely look at pr0.n at work, at school, etc. and as long as you view it as "art", it's ok.


All or nothing arguments are foolish. I already quite clearly stated that something can be both "offensive" in the legal meaning (meaning it can be barred from public and workplace view), while still being "art". My workplace can (and does) prohibit political speech while in the workplace (so no pro/anti politician or party signs on your door or walls kind of thing. It's all about comfortable workplaces. But that doesn't magically make political speech no longer "speech", right? Same deal here. Just because an image isn't appropriate or allowed in a public place, or at work, does not make it not art.

You're trying to shoehorn your own opinion onto everyone else. That's not a very useful approach to anything. You have a very odd way of thinking about things.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Jul 31 2020 at 8:25 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
You gave an example of someone using a racial slur
No, I didn't. You made that up because you realized that you were wrong.

Gbaji wrote:
Your point applies to the objective properties, but not to the subjective
That's not how role models work. People typically don't admire their role models solely because of their physical attributes. It is mostly subjective attributes (i.e., brave, strong, smart, etc.)

Gbaji wrote:
There's no homogeneous "rest of society" though. You're kinda assuming that everyone agrees with your interpretation, while that is clearly not the case.
Gestures in the South don't have the same meaning as in the West or in a foreign country; however, social norms still do exist.

Gbaji wrote:
I already quite clearly stated that something can be both "offensive" in the legal meaning (meaning it can be barred from public and workplace view), while still being "art".
Again, literally my point. Just because you think it's "art" (or your history) doesn't mean other people don't want it barred from public view.

#59 Aug 02 2020 at 12:09 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,159 posts
Voting Republican sends you straight to hell. #Biblefacts
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#60 Aug 02 2020 at 10:15 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Voting Republican sends you straight to hell. #Biblefacts
gbaji was born Catholic, so add in another 5,475,357 years in Purgatory first.










YES, I KNOW GBAJI SAYS HE'S NOT CHURCHED, BUT MONTY PYTHON SAYS OTHERWISE.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#61 Aug 05 2020 at 3:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So you concur that what makes a person racist isn't them doing racist things, but having racist beliefs? Behavior without known intent cannot conclude that a person is racist. Even if a person were to say you stupid [insert race] person, you cannot conclude that the individual is racist. However, given historical context, it is safe to assume that in certain situations.


Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
You gave an example of someone using a racial slur
No, I didn't. You made that up because you realized that you were wrong.


Uh... That's the example you gave. You were comparing that to someone waving a flag. I was saying that they were not the same. WTF? Do you just forget what you said?

Quote:
That's not how role models work. People typically don't admire their role models solely because of their physical attributes. It is mostly subjective attributes (i.e., brave, strong, smart, etc.)


You're misunderstanding what I mean by "objective" vs "subjective". I'm talking about "things we can observe" versus "things we might speculate motivate the things we observe". Seeing someone help a little old lady cross the road is objective fact. It happened. We saw it. We might admire someone for doing so, especially if they have a pattern of that sort of behavior, right? Might even consider that person a "role model".

What we don't know is *why* that person does those things. We have to speculate as to that. We can't read that person's mind. That's my point here. The same applies to the examples of things we might view as racist. We can objectively observe the actions (using a racist slur, say). But we don't know the person's motivation or reason for doing so. However, in your example of someone using a racial slur, we can have a reasonable belief that said action (or even pattern of actions) is likely motivated by some sort of racial hatred, bigotry, and even racism.

Something like flying a flag is a step past that. We can only see that the person is flying that flag. And that action "objectively" has no direct effect. It's purely symbolic, unlike walking someone across the street, or calling someone a racial slur. We can only judge that action by the meaning it has to the person performing it. That's all. Hence my term "subjective". We would have to speculate.

Now yes, if that person also had a pattern of other behavior we associate with being racially bigoted, then we might conclude that for that person, waving the battle flag is likely motivated by some form of racial hatred. Again, we can't be sure, but it's a reasonable bet.

But what about all the people who don't have any pattern of racial hatred, bigotry, discrimination, etc, but who fly that same flag? We should maybe give them the benefit of the doubt that when they say that it's not a symbol of racism, that maybe they're being truthful?

Just a thought. You're trying to insist that you know better than the person themselves what they are thinking and what their motivations are for doing something. That's awfully egotistical of you, IMO.

Quote:
Again, literally my point. Just because you think it's "art" (or your history) doesn't mean other people don't want it barred from public view.



Except you keep trying to argue that if other people want something barred from public view that it makes it not art. That's simply not true. I'm arguing that something absolutely can be art and also be something that our social mores don't allow to be displayed in public. For some bizarre reason you keep getting stuck on this. I'm not even sure why. It's a really dumb argument to make.

Edited, Aug 5th 2020 1:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Aug 05 2020 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Uh... That's the example you gave. You were comparing that to someone waving a flag. I was saying that they were not the same. WTF? Do you just forget what you said?
"Insert Race" is not a racial slur. Black, Chinese, White, Mexican are not racial slurs. The entire point of that example was to show how something that is not racist by definition (such as a racial slur) can be interpreted as such based on historical and social context.

Gbaji wrote:
You're misunderstanding what I mean by "objective" vs "subjective". I'm talking about "things we can observe" versus "things we might speculate motivate the things we observe". Seeing someone help a little old lady cross the road is objective fact. It happened. We saw it. We might admire someone for doing so, especially if they have a pattern of that sort of behavior, right? Might even consider that person a "role model".

What we don't know is *why* that person does those things. We have to speculate as to that. We can't read that person's mind. That's my point here. The same applies to the examples of things we might view as racist. We can objectively observe the actions (using a racist slur, say). But we don't know the person's motivation or reason for doing so. However, in your example of someone using a racial slur, we can have a reasonable belief that said action (or even pattern of actions) is likely motivated by some sort of racial hatred, bigotry, and even racism.

Something like flying a flag is a step past that. We can only see that the person is flying that flag. And that action "objectively" has no direct effect. It's purely symbolic, unlike walking someone across the street, or calling someone a racial slur. We can only judge that action by the meaning it has to the person performing it. That's all. Hence my term "subjective". We would have to speculate.

Now yes, if that person also had a pattern of other behavior we associate with being racially bigoted, then we might conclude that for that person, waving the battle flag is likely motivated by some form of racial hatred. Again, we can't be sure, but it's a reasonable bet.

But what about all the people who don't have any pattern of racial hatred, bigotry, discrimination, etc, but who fly that same flag? We should maybe give them the benefit of the doubt that when they say that it's not a symbol of racism, that maybe they're being truthful?

Just a thought. You're trying to insist that you know better than the person themselves what they are thinking and what their motivations are for doing something. That's awfully egotistical of you, IMO.
Read above

Gbaji wrote:
Except you keep trying to argue that if other people want something barred from public view that it makes it not art.
No, what I'm saying is that your personal interpretation of something does not outweigh the society's interpretation. That is true for everything regardless if society is right or wrong.
#63 Aug 08 2020 at 1:04 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
This is fun conversation and all, but all you need to say is "You are defending a man who repeatedly raped children"..


Nothing else really matters, does it?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#64 Aug 10 2020 at 4:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Uh... That's the example you gave. You were comparing that to someone waving a flag. I was saying that they were not the same. WTF? Do you just forget what you said?
"Insert Race" is not a racial slur. Black, Chinese, White, Mexican are not racial slurs. The entire point of that example was to show how something that is not racist by definition (such as a racial slur) can be interpreted as such based on historical and social context.


Did something scramble your brains at some point or something. So you first start out saying that "Insert Race" is not a racial slur (presumably referring to your example where you used that phrase. Then you say that the point of that example was to show that something (like a racial slur) can be interpreted as racist under certain conditions. Um.... Which is it? Was your example a racial slur, or not?

And at the risk of repeating my point, again. It doesn't matter what specific label we use. You're getting hung up on silly semantics. My point is that, to whatever degree we can do what you say (conclude via a pattern of behavior if someone's action may be motivated by racism), there's a pretty massive divide between directing a negative comment towards someone while also directly mentioning that person's race and waving a flag. There's no doubt that the example you gave is a person making a negative statement about a person, and making that statement in the context of that person's race.

Making the same comparison to waving a flag is erroneous. That flag doesn't mention someone's race. The person waving it doesn't mention race. The person waving it isn't saying anything negative or derogatory about anyone either. So both of the elements in your example are absent in the case of waving a flag.

What we have with the flag is a third party declaring what they *think* that flag means, and then insisting that's the reason the other person is waving it. All, often without bothering to ask the person waving the flag what it means to them or why they're waving it. Again, that's simply not a legitimate way to do things because you can play that game with any symbol or flag you want. It's just a matter of who the "mob" decides to target next. I even gave an example of how this could be done to the LGBTQ flag earlier in the thread just to point out the wrongness of accepting that methodology. I'm sure that was completely lost on you though.

You have to look at the methodology by which we derive positions on things, and not just the specific outcome. When you do the latter, you may get what you want in the short term (get an offensive flag removed), but you are empowering the methodology by which it was removed. And that methodology does not discriminate between "flags/symbols I like" and "flag/symbols I dislike". It's just about doing the right steps to get people to associate a symbol with something "new" and "offensive" and then get rid of the symbol.


Quote:
No, what I'm saying is that your personal interpretation of something does not outweigh the society's interpretation. That is true for everything regardless if society is right or wrong.


Well. No. You literally said it wasn't art:

You wrote:
Just to clarify, in my cowgirl example, I didn't mean a drawing. I meant an actual picture of a woman and a man. I am confident that would not be "overwhelmingly" considered as "art".


But whatever. Even in your newly claimed statement you are wrong. If I'm the one flying a flag or symbol, then my interpretation of what it means is the only thing that matters.

Tell you what though. Why don't you walk up to someone sporting a bunch of tats and get into an argument with that person by insisting that the meaning of the tats for them isn't correct. I'll make the popcorn.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Aug 11 2020 at 4:13 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Then you say that the point of that example was to show that something (like a racial slur)


What I actually wrote:
The entire point of that example was to show how something that is not racist by definition (such as a racial slur) can be interpreted as such based on historical and social context.

You have a hard time comprehending.

Something *not* inherently racist can be interpreted as such based on historical and social context. Stating someone's race is not racist. However, when done in an a certain manner, it can be interpreted as racist. It's not that difficult.

Gbaji wrote:
Well. No. You literally said it wasn't art:
This is really not that difficult to understand. Notice the key term "overwhelmingly". This means most people will not consider it art, which most do not. Just because *you* consider it art, it does not outweigh society's interpretation.

Gbaji wrote:
If I'm the one flying a flag or symbol, then my interpretation of what it means is the only thing that matters.
To you. Unfortunately, when you live in a society, that's not how it works. Your interpretation does not outweigh what the society thinks as a whole.

Gbaji wrote:
Tell you what though. Why don't you walk up to someone sporting a bunch of tats and get into an argument with that person by insisting that the meaning of the tats for them isn't correct. I'll make the popcorn.

So when the guy with the Mike Tyson face tattoo gets turned down a job because the employer says it's not professional, let me know if his personal interpretation of professionalism will outweigh the employer's.
#66 Aug 11 2020 at 4:37 PM Rating: Excellent
*
63 posts
gbaji wrote:
But whatever. Even in your newly claimed statement you are wrong. If I'm the one flying a flag or symbol, then my interpretation of what it means is the only thing that matters.



Are... are we sure that gbaji is just a cnut? And not a caricature?

I mean, I suppose the two aren't mutually exclusive but...
#67 Aug 11 2020 at 6:28 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,135 posts
Velicenda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But whatever. Even in your newly claimed statement you are wrong. If I'm the one flying a flag or symbol, then my interpretation of what it means is the only thing that matters.



Are... are we sure that gbaji is just a cnut? And not a caricature?

I mean, I suppose the two aren't mutually exclusive but...


He has been suspected of being a troll on at least a few occasions, iirc
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#68 Aug 13 2020 at 2:59 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
stupidmonkey wrote:
Velicenda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But whatever. Even in your newly claimed statement you are wrong. If I'm the one flying a flag or symbol, then my interpretation of what it means is the only thing that matters.



Are... are we sure that gbaji is just a cnut? And not a caricature?

I mean, I suppose the two aren't mutually exclusive but...


He has been suspected of being a troll on at least a few occasions, iirc


He is most definitely a troll, but it teaches me how to respond to other people who are less experienced in discussion.
#69 Aug 21 2020 at 9:15 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Almalieque wrote:
He is most definitely a troll
NOPE.

I've met entirely too many "gbaji" types even in my relatively little city to accept this.


There are lots of people who just don't think... they just say what they are programmed to say.

Due to religion, or hardcore GOP family or whatever, they just regurgitate FOX or "prosperity" preachers or "end timer" preachers.


I do have to say, though: Trump does nicely fit the "False Prophet" narrative of scripture.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#70 Aug 21 2020 at 8:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I've met entirely too many "gbaji" types even in my relatively little city to accept this.


There are lots of people who just don't think... they just say what they are programmed to say.

Due to religion, or hardcore GOP family or whatever, they just regurgitate FOX or "prosperity" preachers or "end timer" preachers.


I do have to say, though: Trump does nicely fit the "False Prophet" narrative of scripture.


Interesting. So you're basically saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is incapable o f thinking? That your beliefs are the only absolute correct ones and there is no room for discussion or disagreement, much less re-assessment of said beliefs? Because if the other guy's position isn't the result of thinking, then you never have to stop and think yourself, right?

That's a very dogmatic way of thinking of things. Which makes your own statement both incredibly arrogant and incredibly ironic.

From my point of view *you* are the one refusing to think or to assess things logically. I can lay down a precise argument for every position I hold, starting from accepted facts through a set of logical arguments, and then finally to that position. You... can't. At least, I've never seen you do this in all the years we've been posting on this forum.

When all your positions on things ultimately derive from "I believe the people who told me that", you are acting on faith. Not science. Not logic. Not reason. Just blind faith. Yet you accuse me of doing what you yourself are doing. Which is the ultimate act of blind faith.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Aug 21 2020 at 8:27 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I've met entirely too many "gbaji" types even in my relatively little city to accept this.


There are lots of people who just don't think... they just say what they are programmed to say.

Due to religion, or hardcore GOP family or whatever, they just regurgitate FOX or "prosperity" preachers or "end timer" preachers.


I do have to say, though: Trump does nicely fit the "False Prophet" narrative of scripture.


Interesting. So you're basically saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is incapable o f thinking?
No, idiot.

What I'm saying is that YOU are not an outlier, just another useful idiot.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#72 Aug 21 2020 at 11:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I can lay down a precise argument for every position I hold, starting from accepted facts through a set of logical arguments, and then finally to that position.

It's just obvious.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Aug 22 2020 at 3:00 AM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I can lay down a precise argument for every position I hold, starting from accepted facts through a set of logical arguments, and then finally to that position.

It's just obvious.

If you would just look past the narrative being forced down your throats by MSM, like I do, because in high school, I read the school paper, so I'm basically a professional newsman, you would see what I was talking about.


EDIT: Comma, not period. Anachronistic.


Edited, Aug 22nd 2020 1:01am by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#74 Aug 24 2020 at 9:08 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
I can lay down a precise argument for every position I hold, starting from 1. accepted facts through a set of logical arguments, 2. and then finally to that position.

1. accepted facts: Facts are not open to interpretation, as a rule. Something you should have figured out in JunioUr High school. A fact just is, until proven irrevocably wrong (that is how science works, btw). Just because you and your Bund don't like it does not move the fact into the realm of "I/We don't accept it, so it's wrong". To be clear: "Ideas, opinions, theories, hypothesis, premise and speculation" are not "facts".

In case you still don't get it: To me, it's accepted fact that for a million dollars, you would turn in every Jew, homosexual and socialist to the *proper* authorities regardless of their final fate. That does not make my "accepted fact" a "fact", does it?

2. and then finally to that position.The wrong position. SEE: 1.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#75 Aug 25 2020 at 5:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I can lay down a precise argument for every position I hold, starting from 1. accepted facts through a set of logical arguments, 2. and then finally to that position.

1. accepted facts: Facts are not open to interpretation, as a rule. Something you should have figured out in JunioUr High school.


Correct. I suspect that my understanding of what is and isn't a fact is more correct than yours though.

Quote:
A fact just is, until proven irrevocably wrong (that is how science works, btw).


No. That's not how science works. And this is the core of what I'm talking about. You, and many other people as well, tend to conflate the concept of "fact" with "conclusions". In science a fact is only something that can be observed and measured (and the "fact" is usually the result of some measurement). So "the temperature of the solution in this beaker is X degrees Celsius" is a fact. "The US population as of the last census is Y", is a fact. "The ppm of whatever in this solution of whatever" is a fact.

Facts never change. Period. They can't. That was the value you got when you measured the temperature, or counted the people, or calculated the ppm of something. That cannot change. We can factor in for bad measurements, of course, and often do. But that doesn't change the original fact that was obtained. It just replaces it with a new one.

Conclusions can change. Hypothesis can change. Theories can change. All change as the result of applying scientific method in some way, either with better tests or with new/better measurements which may cause the change. That you think that "facts" can change because of science shows the conflation that I mentioned earlier.

Quote:
To be clear: "Ideas, opinions, theories, hypothesis, premise and speculation" are not "facts".


Correct. And yet, it's often the folks on your "side" of the political spectrum who constantly conflate those. Global Warming? A fact that can't be disputed. Trickle down economics doesn't work? Another "fact" that can't be disputed. Systemic racism? Another fact. Nearly the entire political ideology of the left is based on such "facts" that the acolytes of said "side" are expected to take at face value, never question, and shout down as "ignoring the science" anyone who disagrees.

Quote:
In case you still don't get it: To me, it's accepted fact that for a million dollars, you would turn in every Jew, homosexual and socialist to the *proper* authorities regardless of their final fate. That does not make my "accepted fact" a "fact", does it?


Correct again. What you're missing is that you often do simply declare your opinion/position/conclusion as "true" and ignore any counter arguments that are made. How often do you hear conservatives support a position by claiming it's "accepted science"? It's usually the left who do this. And not because it is, but in order to claim that their position is the one accepted truth, and there can be no discussion or debate. That's an incredibly dangerous methodology to use IMO.

Quote:
2. and then finally to that position.The wrong position. SEE: 1.


Uh huh. Because your "fact -> position" thinking goes in a loop. Hence your argument that my position is "the wrong position" is supported by "see 1.". You're in effect declaring that my position is not a "fact", and thus is untrue. But that's not how this works. My positions are based on facts, but they don't make anything become a fact. While no opinion or position is ever a fact, we should give greater weight to those that are backed up by fact then those which are not.

What facts have you brought to the table here?

Edited, Aug 25th 2020 3:35pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Sep 03 2020 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
What facts have you brought to the table here?
Trump could rape your sister right in front of you and you would still vote for him (and blame your sister for the rape).
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 313 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (313)