"Alt-right" Parading Ignorance, Stupidity, Malice, Etc.

[Cunt]

What about Jack? I knew him years ago...he was a fat-as-fuck broke loser who developed a plan.

He wasn't getting laid anyway, so decided to abandon his hopes of getting a girlfriend, and become a gay prostitute. He used ex-lax to diet down to an appealing weight, then started taking cock for money. He maintained that he was never attracted to guys, just trying to make a living.

Was Jack gay?

[pErvinalia]

I don't think anyone can prove that they aren't racist.

An accusation of racism mostly only convinces me of someting about the accuser.

It's like the word 'creepy' as an accusation. It only describes how the accuser felt.

You really are simplistic, aren't you?

What is the current count on 'pErvinalia doesn't answer simple questions about his position'?

There's no question in there, doofus.

So you think JimC is racist? Or do you think something else about him?

[pErvinalia]

So you are a rapist?

This is about as useful as saying we are all murderers and cannibals.

It's behaviour now that matters, not behaviour 20,000 years ago.

That's bollocks and you probably know it. (maybe I'm giving you credit you don't deserve)
Your examples are fallacious. A murderer is someone who HAS murdered. A cannibal is someone who HAS eaten human flesh. It's a totally different case.
Harbouring murderous feelings doesn't make you a murderer, and similarly a cannibal. But harbouring racist feelings does make you a racist.

What kind of busted up logic is that? As has been pointed out to you, no one (other than conservatives) care what people think or feel. It's ACTIONS that matter.

The label racist, or gay, refers to feeling and attitudes, not past behaviour.
If you applied your simplistic logic to gays, you have to conclude that you're not gay, if you haven't behaved gay.
Everyone knows that's bollocks.

Everyone knows your "logic" is a fucking laff. We aren't talking about people self-identifying (either publicly or personally) as a group. You are suggesting EVERYONE is racist, whether they have self-identified or not. If someone self-identifies as a racist, then they are a racist. If someone behaves like a racist, then they are a racist. If someone doesn't behave as a racist, nor self-identify as a racist, then they aren't a racist. The equation and logic couldn't be simpler. Yet it's no surprise that the person who thinks science is a conspiracy theory can't manage something even this simple.

[pErvinalia]

Multiply his post count by 0.66?

That'd be an impressive feat of mathematics, given probably only a small minority of my posts (0.17?) are in response to a question.

[pErvinalia]

What about Jack? I knew him years ago...he was a fat-as-fuck broke loser who developed a plan.

He wasn't getting laid anyway, so decided to abandon his hopes of getting a girlfriend, and become a gay prostitute. He used ex-lax to diet down to an appealing weight, then started taking cock for money. He maintained that he was never attracted to guys, just trying to make a living.

Was Jack gay?

"Jack". Are you asking for a "friend"..?

[JimC]

There is certainly a more general philosophical issue, to do with deeds, words and thoughts. Person X may have thoughts and emotions consistent with a particular category of being, whether that being a racist, gay, or fascinated by embroidery. Person Y has similar thoughts, and publicly articulates them, but never acts on them (he confesses to friends he would love to do some embroidery, but never gets around to it...). Person Z has the same mental states, articulates them and acts on them.

It would seem to be somewhat intellectually dishonest to lump all 3 into the same category without any further qualification, although there are clearly links.

[Cunt]

I don't think anyone can prove that they aren't racist.

An accusation of racism mostly only convinces me of someting about the accuser.

It's like the word 'creepy' as an accusation. It only describes how the accuser felt.

You really are simplistic, aren't you?

What is the current count on 'pErvinalia doesn't answer simple questions about his position'?

There's no question in there, doofus.

So you think JimC is racist? Or do you think something else about him?

No, I was still harping about my last unanswered question. I hang on to shit like that, and use it to treat your posts with contempt, while ensuring that it appears justified.

There is certainly a more general philosophical issue, to do with deeds, words and thoughts. Person X may have thoughts and emotions consistent with a particular category of being, whether that being a racist, gay, or fascinated by embroidery. Person Y has similar thoughts, and publicly articulates them, but never acts on them (he confesses to friends he would love to do some embroidery, but never gets around to it...). Person Z has the same mental states, articulates them and acts on them.

It would seem to be somewhat intellectually dishonest to lump all 3 into the same category without any further qualification, although there are clearly links.

I just look at reality and think ' it's ok that some people are racist '
Some just twist the definition around until it fits the people they want it to fit.

Both are ways of coping, I guess.

The principles around freedom of speech which I value insist on allowing people to say things which I find abhorrent. I think that is such a significant difference in personal beliefs, that it is at the root of many disagreements.

People should be allowed to be loudly racist. It is shameful that Canada started their hate-speech war by locking up an old crank who was handing out pamphlets for the Nazi party. All that legislative machinery leaped into action (at low cost, no doubt) to intercede, but I really don't think he would have grown much of a following.

It might have been unnecessary to silence him, and may have showed more respect to his ideas than they deserved.

I mean, they allow chiropractors to operate, and astrologers...why not nazis?

[mistermack]

What about Jack? I knew him years ago...he was a fat-as-fuck broke loser who developed a plan.

He wasn't getting laid anyway, so decided to abandon his hopes of getting a girlfriend, and become a gay prostitute. He used ex-lax to diet down to an appealing weight, then started taking cock for money. He maintained that he was never attracted to guys, just trying to make a living.

Was Jack gay?

Assuming he was telling the truth, then of course he was not gay.
Gay is having sexual attraction to the same sex. I'm not going to look up the definition, it's too bleedin obvious, it's an insult to my intelligence.
I'm amazed you can even pose the question.

As far as racist goes, the generally accepted meaning has been expanding over the years.
It started out as a word that was applied only to people who advocated racial theories, like South Africans or the Ku Klux Klan. The meaning has got wider and wider over the years, and now it applies to virtually everyone. As far as I'm concerned it certainly now applies to people who experience a dislike or distrust of certain racial types. Or people who laugh inwardly at jokes that have a racial aspect.
The meaning is so wide now, that if you have any instincts at all about race, you qualify.
And virtually everybody has those instincts, even if they don't indulge them, or even if they actively resist them.

[pErvinalia]

How the fuck would you know if someone had racist instincts but didn't act on them?

[mistermack]

How the fuck would you know if someone had racist instincts but didn't act on them?

What does it matter? That only affects if you KNOW someone is a racist.

Are you seriously suggesting that if you don't know someone is a racist, they are not a racist?

Like Schrödinger's cat ??

[pErvinalia]

If someone doesn't self identify as a racist, or display racist behaviour, then they obviously aren't a racist. This has been explained multiple times to you already.

[mistermack]

If someone doesn't self identify as a racist, or display racist behaviour, then they obviously aren't a racist. This had bee explained multiple times to you already.

You're logic here is idiotic.

And having something explained by an idiot doesn't make it a fact.

[pErvinalia]

Stunning argument.

[JimC]

The real point is in the damage that systematic racism has done over the years. It is one more way of a group cementing power, and keeping other groups down. It is also an inescapable fact that most of the systematic racism, benefiting some and injuring others, has been white racism against black, brown and yellow. This is simple historical fact, and a fuck of a lot more important than empty arguments about inner feelings of tendencies to racism...

[Brian Peacock]

I don't think anyone can prove that they aren't racist.

An accusation of racism mostly only convinces me of someting about the accuser.

It's like the word 'creepy' as an accusation. It only describes how the accuser felt.

You really are simplistic, aren't you?

What is the current count on 'pErvinalia doesn't answer simple questions about his position'?

There's no question in there, doofus.

So you think JimC is racist? Or do you think something else about him?

No, I was still harping about my last unanswered question. I hang on to shit like that, and use it to treat your posts with contempt, while ensuring that it appears justified.

There is certainly a more general philosophical issue, to do with deeds, words and thoughts. Person X may have thoughts and emotions consistent with a particular category of being, whether that being a racist, gay, or fascinated by embroidery. Person Y has similar thoughts, and publicly articulates them, but never acts on them (he confesses to friends he would love to do some embroidery, but never gets around to it...). Person Z has the same mental states, articulates them and acts on them.

It would seem to be somewhat intellectually dishonest to lump all 3 into the same category without any further qualification, although there are clearly links.

I just look at reality and think ' it's ok that some people are racist '
Some just twist the definition around until it fits the people they want it to fit.

Both are ways of coping, I guess.

The principles around freedom of speech which I value insist on allowing people to say things which I find abhorrent. I think that is such a significant difference in personal beliefs, that it is at the root of many disagreements.

People should be allowed to be loudly racist. It is shameful that Canada started their hate-speech war by locking up an old crank who was handing out pamphlets for the Nazi party. All that legislative machinery leaped into action (at low cost, no doubt) to intercede, but I really don't think he would have grown much of a following.

It might have been unnecessary to silence him, and may have showed more respect to his ideas than they deserved.

I mean, they allow chiropractors to operate, and astrologers...why not nazis?

Sure, let people speak and express their thoughts and advocate their positions, that's their right. But they carry the responsibility for those acts. And if they're inciting hatred or advocating discrimination or violence then prosecute them. The right to free expression isn't a consequence free zone.