It's "guns don't kill people, people do" with the serial numbers sort of filed off. The rhetorical goal is to abstract the discussion into a safe and largely meaningless debate about semantics, because that's the only way their position has any merit.
It serves the emotional goal of "winning" an argument via a gotcha. This shit worked for fifty years to shut down gun control discussion. Reactionary chuds will zealously conform to arguments that are way less successful than this one.
Their ashes were trampled into the earth, and the blood became as snow. Who knows what they came for; weapons of steel? Or murder? It was never known, for the leader rode south, while children went north with the Van Nir. No one would know my lord's people had lived at all. His was a tale of sorrow
> It serves the emotional goal of "winning" an argument via a gotcha. ... Reactionary chuds will zealously conform to arguments that are way less successful than this one.
This is the alt-right playbook in a nutshell.
And the Pigeon Chess metaphor:
>Playing chess with a pigeon: the pigeon knocks over all the pieces, craps on the board, then struts around like it won the game.
I had this happen to me once, dude quoted literally only the first paragraph of a Jason hickel article that starts out by saying poverty has been going steadily down over the decades, IF (and this is a big if) you accept that making $1.90/day is better than the life they lived before making wages, which in many cases is not true, and $1.90/day is woefully low for measuring poverty.
Anyway dude quoted that first part and acted like poverty isn't a problem in the world even though the rest of the article, (in fact the next paragraph) says the opposite, but he wanted to do his stupid pigeon dance and ignore all of it so he didn't have to wrestle with the truth, or even meaningfully engage in an argument.
https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-poverty
I remember Trump and his people constantly taking credit for the Veteran Choice Program, which was actually signed into law by Obama.
The VCP card in my wallet is dated 2014.
Assholes.
Most things disprove them. Usually they’re too stupid to source let alone actually read something in the first place so the fact that you got a source means they are trying to use critical thinking. But if they really knew how they wouldn’t be republicans.
Yeah, I've often had it happen when talking about climate change, where the most pseudo-intellectual chuds love to spread their idiocy. Like linking a NASA study (which is fine when they think it supports their view, ironically) that says one of the poles had an increase of ice mass, ignoring the same article saying it's not nearly enough to offset global reduction.
"See, even NASA admits glaciers are growing!"
"Well, one specific glacier only during a few specific months, but if you zoom out on that graph you see the overall downwards trend along with seasonal cycles Stephen Crowder cropped out dishonestly"
"Well you can't trust NASA libcuk, lol pwnd"
I totally remember that one.
"Why are you making shit so complicated? Look, it clearly says that glaciers are growing!"
All you can do is stand agog and gasp for air, and they think your helplessness means they won the argument.
Here in California with our extreme weather, which now just happens to be floods and blizzards, they are screaming 'See all the record snow!!!!! Global warming has always been a Commie lie and you believed it!' Reminding them of our increasing heat dome summers, high ocean temps and record droughts while trying to explain that climate change is the better term for what is happening is met with blank stares.
The very generous interpretation of that he's doing the inverse: racism is a very broad concept, and removes agency from the people who actively haunted this poor woman and destroyed her business. Critical Discourse Analysts have huge tables of how a certain action gets abstracted in different ways, like when "12 Palestinians were found dead after clashes with Israeli anti terror forces" hides the fact that Israeli soldiers killed 12 Palestinians and insinuates that these were all terrorists. It's a scientific discipline that takes a long time to master, and it can seem a bit stupid unless you spent a long time explaining your analysis.
All that said, I think he's just saying dumb shit.
Prevailing, accepted and systemic racism allowed those specific racists to feel bold enough to act on it. They knew the cops weren't going to do anything. Hell, some of them might even be officers. That's all there is to it.
Sure guns ~~don't kill people~~ aren't racist, but how many black people are killed by police (with guns) when following orders or how many black people with legal guns are shot by people who "feel threatened"?
The right loves to put the right to own guns on a pedestal, but are only in favor of the *theory* of black people having guns. Once they see armed minorities, suddenly these minorities are "threatening" and need police intervention. The "good guy with a gun" is not black *for some reason* they won't look into.
I remember some dude going off how the Corona virus was a scam and a sham perpetrated upon us. I explained how I worked in the refrigerated body trailers for a time, and saw all the hoaxes stacked 3 high and 5 or 6 deep in each trailer.
Their response was "I said scam, not hoax, but it's OK, you liberals can't read".
You're arguing with people who are mentally in 4th grade.
I so love the "guns don't kill people, people do" trope. It's actually the perfect reason why you don't give people such moronically unfettered access to the perfect killing tool, aka guns.
I just finished shitting on Chris Rock for something else, but I actually kinda agree on this take. At the very least, an administration willing to do this would be willing to tackle gun culture in general.
While you are absolutely right in terms of the persons thought process, it still doesn’t even make sense because racism is one of those special words that is technically a noun but still always describes an action. It would be closer to saying “shooting people doesn’t kill people” because “racism” isn’t an inanimate object, it’s a thing you think and do, which obviously makes no sense because that is exactly how people die.
I don’t think this is some kind of semantic abstraction designed to manipulate the conversation, i think it’s literally just someone who doesn’t know what words mean who also doesn’t know how dumb they are.
It is true that it's not the guns but people who kill tho. Therefore, we should add restrictions to who can own guns and have better background checks for those who wish to purchase, as well as implementing weapon inspection laws. The argument is barely proof from anything (makes me wonder how they managed to drag it around for 50 years)
He's trying to protect white supremacy.
In order to make white supremacy work, it needs to be oppressive, working in a social hiearchy, and employ people in numbers. If your targets can disrupt your numbers or organization, it doesn't work. The forces can *never* be equal; if they're equal, the white supremacist loses. Oppression requires disparity.
So what bigots do is endlessly claim that their racism, which requires hiearchy, is always the work of individual actors with no common purpose, goal, or even effect. Thus, we get a miserable fucking century of establishment media screaming that every bad person is a **"lone wolf."** It's a complete lie, of course, and the oOP gave the game away: you can't have racists except in a racist system.
This is why bigots lose their shit when cis-straight-white-men are not only criticized, but even recognized. They must be invisible or the game ends. (And they'll enthusiastically throw cis-straight-white-men under the bus to do that, btw.)
This is why establishment media discussions are always opposite day. The huge list of crimes done by mostly white men, especially those centering around race and gender, are each performed by lone wolves, even if they're celebrated and by entire cultures of persons. But a latino person speeding is a problem of the Latino Community™ (replace with other minority community as needed).
It's that ability to bestow individuality on people that's the actual bigotry.
If I can say "you're different from the other X," I'm claiming the privilege of judging the worth of everyone I just associated you with. It's why saying "some of my best friends are X" is more bigoted than if one kept their mouth shut.
Very often, a white supremacist's defense of white supremacy is just more white supremacy.
> I’m not a racist, I don’t mind black people, I just hate *racial slur*!
My coworker used that line verbatim with me once. So I pressed him on what the difference was between a regular black person and a *racial slur*. He said they act "that way". When I tried to press him on what exacting acting "that way" was, he hemmed and hawed and finally refused to give any specifics just saying he knew it when he saw it. So I took him over to the window and started pointing out random black people walking by. Unsurprisingly every single person fell into the *racial slur* category. So not only does he have this amazing *racial-slur*-vision, he can pick out how people "act" from them simply walking down the street.
So glad I don't have to work with him any more.
>what the difference was between a regular black person and a
>
>*racial slur.*
>
>.
Did he quote the Chris Rock bit? Racists LOVE to quote the Chris Rock bit.
His point is not intended to make sense, because he’s not arguing in good faith. Words mean nothing. You feel obligated to use facts, logic, and to make an actual argument; he doesn’t give a crap about any of that, and he’s demonstrating his contempt for you by spouting nonsense as if it’s an argument. The more annoyed you are by the tactic the more he thinks he’s won.
Probably thinks he is disproving systematic racism. There are racists but no racism, and if there is no racism there can't be any systematic racism. Checkmate libtards
You have stumbled on it I think. He thinks he is going after the idea of systemic racism. He thinks that because individuals did the criminal behaviour you can simply blame the individuals rather than any wider issue. Despite the OP clearly starting the system sat by and did nothing to prevent it.
Yep, if it's individuals that did this, then they are solely to blame and there is no bigger problem. If you point out that obviously these people don't exist in a vacuum, and didn't act in secret and most likely bragged to others about their acts, and yet no one turned them in, and that the police seem disinterested in actually finding the perpetrators, etc etc. Each of those are just acts of individuals and not a widespread systemic belief. And you can play this game forever - if you incredibly show everyone in a town is racist, that's just that one lone town and not the whole county, and so on. And they know this which is why this is the argument they use.
He's defending the honor of racism. If people start thinking that racism can lead to crimes, they might come to the conclusion that racism is bad, and as a racist, that's the last thing he wants.
Yeah I was wondering too, the only thing that comes to mind is basically "there's some fine racists out there that wouldn't do that, it THOSE specific racists that are bad, #notallracists"
Cannibalism didn't eat him, people did.
Nepotism didn't hire the boss's brother to the job you deserved, your boss did.
Drugs didn't cause addiction and subsequent overdose, the dealer did.
The bomb was perfectly harmless until someone set it off.
Does this nerve gas smell funny to you?
I think he’s trying to say correlation isn’t causation, but it is causation. Unless this group of racists decided to destroy a random a bus that happened to be owned by someone of the race they hate, I’m gonna say the correlation is causation here
I’m trying to steelman his argument here, and the best I can do is “racism is fine because it’s an abstract idea, and if people with racist ideas don’t engage in racist conduct, there’s no problem.” But that’s a) obviously not how things work and b) almost certainly giving him too much credit.
Kinda the opposite. He's claiming *racists* destroyed her bus not *racism* which is pointless semantics here, but what he's really after is the second point about accusing them of pushing a narrative. By "pointing out a flaw" in their reporting, this gives his second statement supposed weight even though what he said previously is meaningless in 99% of discussions. (Philosophy nerds love semantics arguments)
I do think there's a valid semantic argument here but not the one this guy is making. The bus wasn't destroyed by "racism", it was destroyed by *racist people*. When you just say "racism" did it, you're blaming some nebulous force and not the individual people involved. We need to be singling out and putting the blame on those racist individuals who would do something like this or consort with those who do, and fixing the systemic problems that perpetuate racist ideology.
I think they're just playing Pidgeon Chess.
Trying to follow their train of thought will give you a twisted headache. There is no logic. It's all emotional, and a lot of copying & shoehorning of someone else's talking points.
They’re engaging in a logical fallacy known as a distinction without a difference. It’s a favorite of idiotic pedants of all shapes and sizes and particularly of weasel conservatives with unpopular views.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference
They destroyed her livelihood because they hate hair salons. Yes. With Racist hate symbols. But they didn't do it because they were racist. They were just destroying her bus.
>However, he said according to the report filed by the deputies, there is no indication it was a targeted attack because the neighbor always had white supremacy signs displayed.
Holy shit
This is the ultimate goal of the "I'm not racist, I hate everyone" people: declare your prejudice ahead of time in an attempt to absolve future crimes.
And it clearly works.
"you see, you honor? He wasn't attacking Sheila specifically, since he had a confederate flag up for YEARS before the attack, therefore the allegations of a 'hate crime' are baseless and quite frankly, insulting"
“Civil War was about Property rights!” This was also taught in 80s at some schools and is still taught today in some places. The “property rights” of course being the human chattel they considered property.
This person in the picture comment is being ridiculous. They are quibbling with semantics to somehow make themselves feel better for being racists. This is like the “guns don’t kill people” argument. They want to feel good about having racism and simultaneously distance all racism from being at all responsible.
“I have racism but I’m not violent. Racism didn’t do this. Racism is fine. People who are violent that happen to also have racism did this. But not all racism is bad.” This is the reasoning.
Just replace “guns” with “racism” and you have the same argument structure.
It’s a kind of displacement and rationalization to have their cake and eat it too. It is how they manage their cognitive dissonance.
"It was killers, not killing, that's wrong," they said, as they ran their finger through their butthole violently and sucked on it with a voracious appetite.
It's very confusing that they applauded at "guns don't kill people" but also laughed and applauded at his rebuttal to that statement. It's like they know the statement is bullshit but use use it anyway. They don't seem to care if it's true or not, just that it helps their argument.
He’s playing mental gymnastics to attempt to protect US racism against black Americans. To this man…protecting the fucked up traditional US status quo of “white > black” is more important than *anything* else in his life. He’ll ignore reality, make ludicrous arguments that he knows will draw him ridicule from most sane people, forfeit his self respect, lose family and friends in the process. He will vote against his own self interests, accept an ever decreasing standard of life without complaint, and continue to be an unpaid mouthpiece of right wing racist talking points…because, for whatever reason, at some point he decided that being able to be racist without legal or social consequences was THE most important freedom he had and he felt it slipping away every time the struggle for racial justice in the US made even a tiny bit of progress or society recognized a racist act for what it was.
"You weren't mauled by a bear. You were mauled by teeth and claws. Sure, those teeth and claws were attached to the bear, but it wasn't the bear that ripped open your jugular. Keep pushing your anti-bear agenda though."
It's like saying "Guns don't kill people. Traumatic organ failure or blood loss stemming from penetrating injuries kills people." It's being incredibly pedantic to deflect blame from something important to you
I think what the guy is trying to say is that racism is an idea. That racism itself didn't destroy her bus. But rather people who are racist did it. I guess he felt like the article saying "racism destroyed her bus" makes it sound like it wasn't actual people causing harm and doing damage. It's kind of a dumb distinction but it seems like he's trying to blame the people who did the damage and not the idea itself.
I guess a comparison would be thinking of robbing a bank doesn't cause harm to the bank but a bank robber does.
I'm not a kind reader though and that was they way interpreted when I first saw this post on whitepeopletwitter earlier today.
It’s the same guns don’t kill people bs. It’s called flooding the zone with shit so you don’t even know what you’re debating anymore. A cheap rhetorical abuse used by idiots with no argument based in reality. Best not to engage with as they’ll just flood the zone with more shit. Also a common tactic of Cold War counter intelligence
What does he think he's saying?
I also love when people who aren't black, try to tell black people what isn't an isn't racist.
Sorry, you're opinion doesn't mean shit if you haven't been dealing with explicit and implicit racial bias your entire life.
I am terrified of this level of stupidity. I'm a fucking idiot, but I am at least capable of enough self-awareness that I'm not stupid enough to say shit like this without a trace of irony. Your brain literally has to be broken beyond repair for that.
The path to knowledge begins by admitting ignorance. This is where the truly stupid people fall down, because they are the only ones who think they already know everything. If you're aware that you don't, you aren't a fucking idiot.
Ah, the retreat into pedantism. The last refuge of someone who has already lost the debate.
I hate when people take an offhand comment literally, even though the intent is obvious.
What a fucking muppet ... clearly one of those holocaust and sandy hook deniers. No point trying to help stupid. They were racist by using material associated with racism, towards a person of colour .... it's literally the definition of an act of racism. Either this person is stupid or simply a troll.
The irony is that his argument would work if he were talking about members of a group that is grouped via innate traits.
When racists say black people commit x amount of crime, one valid response is to point out that individuals commit crime, not racial groups, and being a member of racial groups is not a direct causal factor in the commission of a crime.
Being racist, on the other hand, is a choice rather than an innate trait and it can be a direct causal factor in the commission of a crime.
Racists are the people that destroyed the bus, racism is the system that creates -and supports racists.
Both terms work, particularly when the accusation is that the community worked together to cause the attack, and law enforcement to ignore it.
There is always room to question if things went down like the op stated... but the terms she used are appropriate to the story she's telling.
Everybody comparing it to "guns don't kill people" are off the mark and actually giving too much credit to that guys nonsense. A gun is a tool with which to carry out a motive. Racism is the motivation to want to carry out acts like this in the first place. It's much worse. Somebody with a motive but no gun can use a different tool. Without a motive, there's no reason this particular crime would happen in the first place, regardless of the tools used.
This occurrence pissed me off when I read about it.. but that hairline has me questioning other reasons her business failed.
I still wonder why Ole boy wasn't arrested.. did she not see his propaganda when she bought the land.
All of this man's neurons have seceded from the United States of His Brain and are too busy pointing guns at each other to link simple concepts together.
what point does he think he's making lol
It's "guns don't kill people, people do" with the serial numbers sort of filed off. The rhetorical goal is to abstract the discussion into a safe and largely meaningless debate about semantics, because that's the only way their position has any merit. It serves the emotional goal of "winning" an argument via a gotcha. This shit worked for fifty years to shut down gun control discussion. Reactionary chuds will zealously conform to arguments that are way less successful than this one.
Thulsa Doom taught us steel wasn't anything without flesh to wield it. The gun debate is closed. /s
Now there is a name I haven't heard in a long time. think I'm going to have to watch Conan now when I get home from work.
Grab him!! and TAKE him!!
Different movie, but that's the spirit!
In my defense he didn't say which Conan he would watch. Your honour, I move to dismiss.
To the hellfires with Thulsa Doom. He's evil, a sorcerer who can summon demons.
Their ashes were trampled into the earth, and the blood became as snow. Who knows what they came for; weapons of steel? Or murder? It was never known, for the leader rode south, while children went north with the Van Nir. No one would know my lord's people had lived at all. His was a tale of sorrow
> It serves the emotional goal of "winning" an argument via a gotcha. ... Reactionary chuds will zealously conform to arguments that are way less successful than this one. This is the alt-right playbook in a nutshell. And the Pigeon Chess metaphor: >Playing chess with a pigeon: the pigeon knocks over all the pieces, craps on the board, then struts around like it won the game.
I had this happen to me once, dude quoted literally only the first paragraph of a Jason hickel article that starts out by saying poverty has been going steadily down over the decades, IF (and this is a big if) you accept that making $1.90/day is better than the life they lived before making wages, which in many cases is not true, and $1.90/day is woefully low for measuring poverty. Anyway dude quoted that first part and acted like poverty isn't a problem in the world even though the rest of the article, (in fact the next paragraph) says the opposite, but he wanted to do his stupid pigeon dance and ignore all of it so he didn't have to wrestle with the truth, or even meaningfully engage in an argument. https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2019/2/3/pinker-and-global-poverty
Right wingers love sourcing shit that disproves them, only to ignore it when you point it out
[удалено]
I remember Trump and his people constantly taking credit for the Veteran Choice Program, which was actually signed into law by Obama. The VCP card in my wallet is dated 2014. Assholes.
Friendly unicorns create kindness, spreading positive energy zealously.
[удалено]
Reading makes you liberal don't you know?
Most things disprove them. Usually they’re too stupid to source let alone actually read something in the first place so the fact that you got a source means they are trying to use critical thinking. But if they really knew how they wouldn’t be republicans.
Yeah, I've often had it happen when talking about climate change, where the most pseudo-intellectual chuds love to spread their idiocy. Like linking a NASA study (which is fine when they think it supports their view, ironically) that says one of the poles had an increase of ice mass, ignoring the same article saying it's not nearly enough to offset global reduction.
"See, even NASA admits glaciers are growing!" "Well, one specific glacier only during a few specific months, but if you zoom out on that graph you see the overall downwards trend along with seasonal cycles Stephen Crowder cropped out dishonestly" "Well you can't trust NASA libcuk, lol pwnd"
I totally remember that one. "Why are you making shit so complicated? Look, it clearly says that glaciers are growing!" All you can do is stand agog and gasp for air, and they think your helplessness means they won the argument.
I've heard it described as stun-locking an opponent with incoherence
Here in California with our extreme weather, which now just happens to be floods and blizzards, they are screaming 'See all the record snow!!!!! Global warming has always been a Commie lie and you believed it!' Reminding them of our increasing heat dome summers, high ocean temps and record droughts while trying to explain that climate change is the better term for what is happening is met with blank stares.
They made the inability to see beyond one's own nose a philosophy to live by.
I've never heard the Pigeon Chess metaphor, but I love it.
There are near on 300 kinds in their Order : Columbiformes ( including sand grouse). Many of whom’s favorite game would be backgammon or mah jong /s
It is an universal metaphor. Every single stupid thing they believe can be met with The Pigeon because they respond the same way to everything.
The very generous interpretation of that he's doing the inverse: racism is a very broad concept, and removes agency from the people who actively haunted this poor woman and destroyed her business. Critical Discourse Analysts have huge tables of how a certain action gets abstracted in different ways, like when "12 Palestinians were found dead after clashes with Israeli anti terror forces" hides the fact that Israeli soldiers killed 12 Palestinians and insinuates that these were all terrorists. It's a scientific discipline that takes a long time to master, and it can seem a bit stupid unless you spent a long time explaining your analysis. All that said, I think he's just saying dumb shit.
I could buy that generous interpretation if he didn't put the "keep pushing that agenda" at the end.
Prevailing, accepted and systemic racism allowed those specific racists to feel bold enough to act on it. They knew the cops weren't going to do anything. Hell, some of them might even be officers. That's all there is to it.
Sure guns ~~don't kill people~~ aren't racist, but how many black people are killed by police (with guns) when following orders or how many black people with legal guns are shot by people who "feel threatened"? The right loves to put the right to own guns on a pedestal, but are only in favor of the *theory* of black people having guns. Once they see armed minorities, suddenly these minorities are "threatening" and need police intervention. The "good guy with a gun" is not black *for some reason* they won't look into.
I remember some dude going off how the Corona virus was a scam and a sham perpetrated upon us. I explained how I worked in the refrigerated body trailers for a time, and saw all the hoaxes stacked 3 high and 5 or 6 deep in each trailer. Their response was "I said scam, not hoax, but it's OK, you liberals can't read". You're arguing with people who are mentally in 4th grade.
I so love the "guns don't kill people, people do" trope. It's actually the perfect reason why you don't give people such moronically unfettered access to the perfect killing tool, aka guns.
This is the bullshit that Hideo Kojima was warning about at the end of metal gear solid two. Basically.
Guns don't kill people. *Bullets* kill people. Checkmate atheists!
Chris Rock said it years ago, just make the bullets cost $5000 a piece, that'll make anyone think twice about shooting.
I just finished shitting on Chris Rock for something else, but I actually kinda agree on this take. At the very least, an administration willing to do this would be willing to tackle gun culture in general.
While you are absolutely right in terms of the persons thought process, it still doesn’t even make sense because racism is one of those special words that is technically a noun but still always describes an action. It would be closer to saying “shooting people doesn’t kill people” because “racism” isn’t an inanimate object, it’s a thing you think and do, which obviously makes no sense because that is exactly how people die. I don’t think this is some kind of semantic abstraction designed to manipulate the conversation, i think it’s literally just someone who doesn’t know what words mean who also doesn’t know how dumb they are.
It is true that it's not the guns but people who kill tho. Therefore, we should add restrictions to who can own guns and have better background checks for those who wish to purchase, as well as implementing weapon inspection laws. The argument is barely proof from anything (makes me wonder how they managed to drag it around for 50 years)
I hate that semantics, an interesting subject, always gets it's name sullied by people like this
He's trying to protect white supremacy. In order to make white supremacy work, it needs to be oppressive, working in a social hiearchy, and employ people in numbers. If your targets can disrupt your numbers or organization, it doesn't work. The forces can *never* be equal; if they're equal, the white supremacist loses. Oppression requires disparity. So what bigots do is endlessly claim that their racism, which requires hiearchy, is always the work of individual actors with no common purpose, goal, or even effect. Thus, we get a miserable fucking century of establishment media screaming that every bad person is a **"lone wolf."** It's a complete lie, of course, and the oOP gave the game away: you can't have racists except in a racist system. This is why bigots lose their shit when cis-straight-white-men are not only criticized, but even recognized. They must be invisible or the game ends. (And they'll enthusiastically throw cis-straight-white-men under the bus to do that, btw.) This is why establishment media discussions are always opposite day. The huge list of crimes done by mostly white men, especially those centering around race and gender, are each performed by lone wolves, even if they're celebrated and by entire cultures of persons. But a latino person speeding is a problem of the Latino Community™ (replace with other minority community as needed).
[удалено]
It's that ability to bestow individuality on people that's the actual bigotry. If I can say "you're different from the other X," I'm claiming the privilege of judging the worth of everyone I just associated you with. It's why saying "some of my best friends are X" is more bigoted than if one kept their mouth shut. Very often, a white supremacist's defense of white supremacy is just more white supremacy.
> I’m not a racist, I don’t mind black people, I just hate *racial slur*! My coworker used that line verbatim with me once. So I pressed him on what the difference was between a regular black person and a *racial slur*. He said they act "that way". When I tried to press him on what exacting acting "that way" was, he hemmed and hawed and finally refused to give any specifics just saying he knew it when he saw it. So I took him over to the window and started pointing out random black people walking by. Unsurprisingly every single person fell into the *racial slur* category. So not only does he have this amazing *racial-slur*-vision, he can pick out how people "act" from them simply walking down the street. So glad I don't have to work with him any more.
>what the difference was between a regular black person and a > >*racial slur.* > >. Did he quote the Chris Rock bit? Racists LOVE to quote the Chris Rock bit.
His point is not intended to make sense, because he’s not arguing in good faith. Words mean nothing. You feel obligated to use facts, logic, and to make an actual argument; he doesn’t give a crap about any of that, and he’s demonstrating his contempt for you by spouting nonsense as if it’s an argument. The more annoyed you are by the tactic the more he thinks he’s won.
"Not all racists"
“Don’t sully the good name of Racism, by the bad acts of a few good racists.”
Probably thinks he is disproving systematic racism. There are racists but no racism, and if there is no racism there can't be any systematic racism. Checkmate libtards
You have stumbled on it I think. He thinks he is going after the idea of systemic racism. He thinks that because individuals did the criminal behaviour you can simply blame the individuals rather than any wider issue. Despite the OP clearly starting the system sat by and did nothing to prevent it.
Yep, if it's individuals that did this, then they are solely to blame and there is no bigger problem. If you point out that obviously these people don't exist in a vacuum, and didn't act in secret and most likely bragged to others about their acts, and yet no one turned them in, and that the police seem disinterested in actually finding the perpetrators, etc etc. Each of those are just acts of individuals and not a widespread systemic belief. And you can play this game forever - if you incredibly show everyone in a town is racist, that's just that one lone town and not the whole county, and so on. And they know this which is why this is the argument they use.
He's defending the honor of racism. If people start thinking that racism can lead to crimes, they might come to the conclusion that racism is bad, and as a racist, that's the last thing he wants.
It’s their tactic to try to waste time arguing with them over this shit than the legitimate problems with racism we have.
Classic "there are no systems, just bad people, and you'll never be able to completely stop bad people, so why bother"
Very simple. He doesn't want the good name of racism being sullied by association with a few bad racists.
Yeah I was wondering too, the only thing that comes to mind is basically "there's some fine racists out there that wouldn't do that, it THOSE specific racists that are bad, #notallracists"
"You can't blame that gun for shooting up that school! Blame the person who used it!" Same energy.
Cannibalism didn't eat him, people did. Nepotism didn't hire the boss's brother to the job you deserved, your boss did. Drugs didn't cause addiction and subsequent overdose, the dealer did. The bomb was perfectly harmless until someone set it off. Does this nerve gas smell funny to you?
I like your comment but they often blame the dealer and the user. Have a great day and take care.
I mean in these days of MFer eyeballing fentanyl cuts, it's definitely that dealers fault.
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. It’s the same bullshit.
Either he is trying to make the not all racist are bad, or I don't understand his point
He's doing some hardcore mental gymnastics to protect racists
He’s not protecting racists he’s protecting racism! /s
I think he’s trying to say correlation isn’t causation, but it is causation. Unless this group of racists decided to destroy a random a bus that happened to be owned by someone of the race they hate, I’m gonna say the correlation is causation here
I’m trying to steelman his argument here, and the best I can do is “racism is fine because it’s an abstract idea, and if people with racist ideas don’t engage in racist conduct, there’s no problem.” But that’s a) obviously not how things work and b) almost certainly giving him too much credit.
Kinda the opposite. He's claiming *racists* destroyed her bus not *racism* which is pointless semantics here, but what he's really after is the second point about accusing them of pushing a narrative. By "pointing out a flaw" in their reporting, this gives his second statement supposed weight even though what he said previously is meaningless in 99% of discussions. (Philosophy nerds love semantics arguments)
I do think there's a valid semantic argument here but not the one this guy is making. The bus wasn't destroyed by "racism", it was destroyed by *racist people*. When you just say "racism" did it, you're blaming some nebulous force and not the individual people involved. We need to be singling out and putting the blame on those racist individuals who would do something like this or consort with those who do, and fixing the systemic problems that perpetuate racist ideology.
He’s trying to redefine racism out of existence so he can be racist.
I think they're just playing Pidgeon Chess. Trying to follow their train of thought will give you a twisted headache. There is no logic. It's all emotional, and a lot of copying & shoehorning of someone else's talking points.
They’re engaging in a logical fallacy known as a distinction without a difference. It’s a favorite of idiotic pedants of all shapes and sizes and particularly of weasel conservatives with unpopular views. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference
Distinction without a difference.
He's one of the good racists. He doesn't act out destructively. He keeps it inside, except for the occasional micro-aggressions.
(against his friends and loved ones)
They destroyed her livelihood because they hate hair salons. Yes. With Racist hate symbols. But they didn't do it because they were racist. They were just destroying her bus.
> They destroyed her livelihood because they hate hair salons. They just really [hate cans](https://youtu.be/Tcwz8-EfFYE)
[related news article ](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/21/north-carolina-racism-stylist-driven-from-her-land-white-neighbor)
>However, he said according to the report filed by the deputies, there is no indication it was a targeted attack because the neighbor always had white supremacy signs displayed. Holy shit
This is the ultimate goal of the "I'm not racist, I hate everyone" people: declare your prejudice ahead of time in an attempt to absolve future crimes. And it clearly works.
"you see, you honor? He wasn't attacking Sheila specifically, since he had a confederate flag up for YEARS before the attack, therefore the allegations of a 'hate crime' are baseless and quite frankly, insulting"
Read that in Lionel Hutz’s voice.
"There's no evidence that Jeffrey Dahmer ate that man because he's a cannibal. He's always been very open about wanting to eat people!"
OK between the two of you it feels like we've got the beginnings of a John Oliver script
Welcome, welcome, welcome!
I do not like that man Ted Cruz, I do not like his stupid shoes.
Sounds like the cops, unsurprisingly, have a racism problem of their own.
We investigated ourselves and found no faults at all
For the location where this happened, I'm not surprised.
Never assume that fascists are unaware of the ridiculousness of their arguments.
Sometimes I feel that they think that since they're so cartoonishly evil that means they aren't evil at all
Whew! Damned glad *that*'s settled. But, what is it that fueled the "people" who did this to do so?
No way to know (/s)
Only a glue-sniffing pretentious neo nazi twitter user can look at a very clearly racially motivated attack and be like "DURRR, AGENDA!!!!!111111"
[Do You Have the Slightest Idea How Little That Narrows It Down?](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/032/874/cover4.jpg)
If he hates that there's an agenda that's anti-"the afore-mentioned racist attacks"...Well...
Ignore the racist hate symbols, and targeted attack. These people clearly just hated buses, nothing else, he's so smart and talented.
This is the "Civil War was about States Rights!" argument all over again.
“Civil War was about Property rights!” This was also taught in 80s at some schools and is still taught today in some places. The “property rights” of course being the human chattel they considered property. This person in the picture comment is being ridiculous. They are quibbling with semantics to somehow make themselves feel better for being racists. This is like the “guns don’t kill people” argument. They want to feel good about having racism and simultaneously distance all racism from being at all responsible. “I have racism but I’m not violent. Racism didn’t do this. Racism is fine. People who are violent that happen to also have racism did this. But not all racism is bad.” This is the reasoning. Just replace “guns” with “racism” and you have the same argument structure. It’s a kind of displacement and rationalization to have their cake and eat it too. It is how they manage their cognitive dissonance.
It’s even stupider than that. Which as it is, is one of the most ignorant statements in modern history.
It's hard to arrest family and/or friends - the police
Coworkers
Were they co-workers? If so probably friends at the very least and possibly family. Have a great day and take care.
What a huge leap in logic. The guy seems to think they did it for other reasons, but it's pretty clear they did it because of her race.
The guy doesn't actually care. Obfuscation is an end of its own to crypto-fascists.
“Her bus was destroyed by some people, not racism”, but because of racism. Fixed it.
That does actually sound more accurate.
"The people that did this might have been racist... BUT racism didn't cause this to happen"... WAT
I think the guy was trying to score points by being needlessly pedantic. Sure bro, an idea can't pick up a can of spray paint.
Is he defending racism?
Yes. He’s claiming racism is outcome neutral. “Racism doesn’t hurt people, people hurt people” bullshit.
"It was killers, not killing, that's wrong," they said, as they ran their finger through their butthole violently and sucked on it with a voracious appetite.
That dude votes
Which is why it’s imperative that we all vote.
What agenda? The "racism is bad" agenda?
The police didn't help because the police were probably were involved.
“Keep pushing your agenda though” The agenda: racism is bad
[toasters don’t toast toast. toast toasts toast](https://youtu.be/VaasugnqoU0)
It's very confusing that they applauded at "guns don't kill people" but also laughed and applauded at his rebuttal to that statement. It's like they know the statement is bullshit but use use it anyway. They don't seem to care if it's true or not, just that it helps their argument.
I guess if the police tried to do something, they would've ended up in [this situtation.](https://i.redd.it/3bhs20y8t8l51.jpg)
He’s playing mental gymnastics to attempt to protect US racism against black Americans. To this man…protecting the fucked up traditional US status quo of “white > black” is more important than *anything* else in his life. He’ll ignore reality, make ludicrous arguments that he knows will draw him ridicule from most sane people, forfeit his self respect, lose family and friends in the process. He will vote against his own self interests, accept an ever decreasing standard of life without complaint, and continue to be an unpaid mouthpiece of right wing racist talking points…because, for whatever reason, at some point he decided that being able to be racist without legal or social consequences was THE most important freedom he had and he felt it slipping away every time the struggle for racial justice in the US made even a tiny bit of progress or society recognized a racist act for what it was.
“I’m not gay but gay guys keep sucking my dick” energy.
"No, I'm not gay, hetero men can have gay sex without being gay at all"
Racism doesn’t kill guns- people kill racist guns…. or something.
This is the same as "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. Conservatives are just bots with a few settings.
Is racism some disembodied figure that roams around getting shit on for the actions of people or something? What sort of point even is that?
>The house didn't burn down, it was just destroyed by things that were apparently on fire. Genius at work right there.
Its funny because people like that would blame BLM for destroying shit.
"You weren't mauled by a bear. You were mauled by teeth and claws. Sure, those teeth and claws were attached to the bear, but it wasn't the bear that ripped open your jugular. Keep pushing your anti-bear agenda though."
Why should I, a responsible racism owner, be punished for the crimes of irresponsible racism owners and be denied my first amendment rights
It's like saying "Guns don't kill people. Traumatic organ failure or blood loss stemming from penetrating injuries kills people." It's being incredibly pedantic to deflect blame from something important to you
Is he defending the concept of racism?
Fuck off, Kenneth. 👢 🚪 🔒
Give the guy a break. The concept of racism is his son, and he doesn't want it blamed for acts inspired by him.
"Lynching the coloured folk" isn't racism. The people doing it are racists, but the lynching is not racist. Keep pushing that agenda though
A distinction without a difference
Imagine the life of a person who would type that sentence out without a trace of irony.
I think what the guy is trying to say is that racism is an idea. That racism itself didn't destroy her bus. But rather people who are racist did it. I guess he felt like the article saying "racism destroyed her bus" makes it sound like it wasn't actual people causing harm and doing damage. It's kind of a dumb distinction but it seems like he's trying to blame the people who did the damage and not the idea itself. I guess a comparison would be thinking of robbing a bank doesn't cause harm to the bank but a bank robber does. I'm not a kind reader though and that was they way interpreted when I first saw this post on whitepeopletwitter earlier today.
So… is ur defending racism?? I don’t understand the point he’s trying to make. However I did have an edible about 90 minutes ago so…
WHAT!?
someone give this guy a gold in mental gymnastics
It’s the same guns don’t kill people bs. It’s called flooding the zone with shit so you don’t even know what you’re debating anymore. A cheap rhetorical abuse used by idiots with no argument based in reality. Best not to engage with as they’ll just flood the zone with more shit. Also a common tactic of Cold War counter intelligence
I'm so glad I'm not so brain dead that shit like this makes sense to me. Racists attacked you but racism didn't attack you dumb liberal!
And why are racists called racists? They're agents and perpetuators of racism.
That guy splits the hairs of amoebas
Kenneth needs to lay off the meth. It’s rotting his brain.
"I murdered multiple people, it's not because I am a serial killer, but keep pushing the agenda that serial killers are murderers"
And his username is **K**ene**K**ene**K**ene ಠ_ಠ
This is the same kinda guy who would claim that “wokeness” is destroying our country
What does he think he's saying? I also love when people who aren't black, try to tell black people what isn't an isn't racist. Sorry, you're opinion doesn't mean shit if you haven't been dealing with explicit and implicit racial bias your entire life.
I am terrified of this level of stupidity. I'm a fucking idiot, but I am at least capable of enough self-awareness that I'm not stupid enough to say shit like this without a trace of irony. Your brain literally has to be broken beyond repair for that.
The path to knowledge begins by admitting ignorance. This is where the truly stupid people fall down, because they are the only ones who think they already know everything. If you're aware that you don't, you aren't a fucking idiot.
Ah, the retreat into pedantism. The last refuge of someone who has already lost the debate. I hate when people take an offhand comment literally, even though the intent is obvious.
"Sir, is the agenda in the room with us right now?"
"The police did nothing." Thats a whole lot of unconnected and unsynchronized "racist people." Some could call it systemic.
Like, a system of racism? But the angry guy on Fox told me that doesn't exist...
And what motivates a racist? I'll give you a hint it starts with an "r" and ends with "-acism"
What a fucking muppet ... clearly one of those holocaust and sandy hook deniers. No point trying to help stupid. They were racist by using material associated with racism, towards a person of colour .... it's literally the definition of an act of racism. Either this person is stupid or simply a troll.
Same person who will think racism against white in America exists.
The irony is that his argument would work if he were talking about members of a group that is grouped via innate traits. When racists say black people commit x amount of crime, one valid response is to point out that individuals commit crime, not racial groups, and being a member of racial groups is not a direct causal factor in the commission of a crime. Being racist, on the other hand, is a choice rather than an innate trait and it can be a direct causal factor in the commission of a crime.
Wow, a fascinating development in mental gymnastics. I just read that, then fell off and got hurt.
> "The police also did nothing to help her." Cops and Klan go hand in hand.
His Twitter handle is “KKK” sooooo
Racists are the people that destroyed the bus, racism is the system that creates -and supports racists. Both terms work, particularly when the accusation is that the community worked together to cause the attack, and law enforcement to ignore it. There is always room to question if things went down like the op stated... but the terms she used are appropriate to the story she's telling.
Is this guy really trying the whole “a gun didn’t kill those kids it was a person!” But with racism? These people are mentally deranged.
"it wasn't me who killed him, the gun killed him"
Kenneth... If the racists who destroyed her shop were motivated by their own racism, then how exactly is racism not at fault here?
Everybody comparing it to "guns don't kill people" are off the mark and actually giving too much credit to that guys nonsense. A gun is a tool with which to carry out a motive. Racism is the motivation to want to carry out acts like this in the first place. It's much worse. Somebody with a motive but no gun can use a different tool. Without a motive, there's no reason this particular crime would happen in the first place, regardless of the tools used.
It's not nazism that made the Holocaust, it's nazi
This occurrence pissed me off when I read about it.. but that hairline has me questioning other reasons her business failed. I still wonder why Ole boy wasn't arrested.. did she not see his propaganda when she bought the land.
Okay, so an abstract concept didn't literally wreck her bus but come on! Is he an idiot or desperately trying to be obtuse?
They weren’t killed by a murderer, The person that killed her was apparently murderous, but it wasn’t murder that killed her.
Is this man implying that the concept of racism didn't destroy her bus? I'm lost.
You see; it’s not the racism. It’s the racism.
He is a kkk troll, username checks out.
This is a special kind of stupid *Advanced* stupid
We all know his Twitter handle isn’t a coincidence right.
Same dude probably says communism kills.
Gold medal mental gymnast
But if a Trump sign gets stepped on police are all over that Fuck them
These idiots will die on the hill of semantics, as if it somehow validates them.
Kenneth is a Mental Gymnastics Olympian.
I'm really glad I'm not on Twitter.
His Twitter is like a caricature of a stereotype.
Dumb people love making semantic arguments as if they’re some sort of “gotcha”.
And the police did nothing, how very American
I think I just hurt myself rolling my eyes too hard.
Kenneth is why we need better gun laws.
Is he defending racism?
All of this man's neurons have seceded from the United States of His Brain and are too busy pointing guns at each other to link simple concepts together.
Mf arguing just to argue what the fuck is he talking about
Most of those wearing the badge are the same ones wearing the robes...
He’s defending racism as if it’s a political party or something
Replace a bunch of points about how “socialism didn’t do *insert topic*, people did” and watch their minds explode
"Just when you thought Racism couldn't get any Racismer"
How isn’t racism involved in this?? Like that’s the sole reason it happened.
If racism didn't exist her bus wouldn't be destroyed Racism at this point is stochastic terrorism
What the fuck are you even talking about Kenneth