NYC is considering removing statues of Washington and Columbus

[Ghost of a Rider]

That liars are bad? Sure.

I'm not lying about anyone's character.

I think you are but that's not the point. You know that false accusations and lies are a possibility when passing judgment on racism, homophobia, etc., but you accept this as collateral damage and being the nature of the beast. This does not jibe with your morality about people honoring historical figures and makes you look like a hypocrite.

It's my honest opinion that slaver veneraters are pieces of human shit. Just because I agree above that liars are bad doesn't mean I agree with any instance in which you accuse someone of lying. Maybe you're lying. That would par for the course for a piece of human shit like you.

Never mind who's accusing who, false accusations happen, yes?

Ideals are emotions, you're just too slow to grasp it.

Negative Lumpy.

You've developed these ideas in a vacuum and not based on experiences from outside stimuli?

How do you develop emotions?

They are. They're just emotions you've assigned special importance to. Don't give me this may or may not be rooted in emotions bullshit. If you don't think they are emotions then explain to me what you think they actually are.

I already have. You just don't agree with it.

I don't care if you see it as just. My goal isn't for you to care but for Black Americans to receive reparations.

What you care or don't care about is irrelevant.

You're such a bitch. Government doesn't work any differently for me than it does for you.

Didn't say it did.

If that's how you wish to frame it then that framing exists for every part of government you support as well.

For the most part, I only support the basics. I certainly do not want government to be my enforcer, especially in something as trivial as statues.

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly you don't agree with, objectively, from the statement that veneraters of Washington venerate a slaver. We've established that they venerate Washington and that Washington was a slaver. What's to disagree with, objectively?

I've already explained this multiple times as well. But one more time for the reading impaired: They don't honor these people because they owned slaves. They honor them for their achievements in spite of their owning slaves.

This is the only reason I'm still responding. Despite me telling you repeatedly that I don't care about your bitch feelings for some reason you keep trying to tell me about them.

Despite me telling you repeatedly why they honor historical figures, your bitch feelings have you obsessively continuing to ask about venerating slavers.

I thought his comments were transphobic. I don't know if he's transphobic. Maybe.

And those who say he is, are they right? Or, are they closer to the mark than you are? If he's not transphobic, does this mean those who say he is are liars?

I've been tolerating your speech this entire time

No you haven't. Consistently calling me racist is not tolerance.

and unlike you I've never suggested you should stop sharing your opinion because others might react violently.

I never did either.

What a lot of confused assumptions. Just because acceptance and tolerance is a sound principle in some instances doesn't mean it's a sound principle in all instances. And I've never advocated acceptance or tolerance. This was some position you've heard from other liberals and you think it applies to me. It doesn't.

So you don't advocate acceptance and tolerance?

What about it? What if I'm not wrong about you being a racist?

Answer the question: What if someone you call homophobe is, in fact, not a homophobe?

What ifs are stupid. Make an argument.

Okay: You're a liar.

Jesus you're stupid. Opinions aren't right or wrong, just different. They're expressions of how people feel. If someone feels you're a racist or a transphobe what position are you in to say their feelings are false? You can feel differently but that's about it.

What position am I in to say their feelings are false? Really? You don't think I know better than you what MY feelings are?

I don't agree that my opinions and judgements are rash. That's simply your opinion. Is your opinion false or just different than my own?

Answer the question: If you know that both of your opinions are subjective, why would you take the risk of erring on the side of rash or possibly incorrect judgment?

Let me amend my earlier comment. I'm also sticking around to see if you can figure out what the fuck opinions are. It isn't this fucking hard my guy.

You're too fucking stupid to understand that opinions can be objectively false. And before you say it, I'm talking about any kind of opinion in any context.

A good example in this vein is the Nick Sandmann incident in D.C. in 2019. After the first photo showed up on CNN showing Sandmann facing a Native American while wearing a MAGA hat, half the country opined that he was racist and was harassing Phillips. This turned out to be objectively false.

They were slavers. They rebelled. What's objectively wrong with that description?

If taken separately, nothing. However, your saying that it was a slaver rebellion is false.

It might be apt to say the Civil War was a slaver rebellion as slavery was more or less the issue but that's not what the Revolutionary War was about.

Then use tyrant or slaver. Slaver and tyrant aren't better than terrorist. They're all pretty deplorable.

Nevertheless, I view Boko Haram as more deplorable than Washington.

Which were slaver colonies.

And? That's irrelevant to why the war was fought.

Already answered. If you don't like my answer tough tits. I find your entire framing of the issue disingenuous and racist.

Of course you do. But then, racism is always your default position when you don't understand an argument.

This all started when I told you about how some liberals think blacks are too helpless to acquire IDs. I say they are not. This is the only reason I brought it up. The North Carolina case is irrelevant here.

The case only serves to show how a Republican district targeted an African American community. It has nothing to do with the issue of IDs since that issue has been going on long before this.

You're confusing randos on the street and youtube with the real issue. Republicans targeting black voters is the real concern of black voters. Not confused rando white people.

No, this is your issue, not mine. Remember, I'm the one who brought it up and I know why I did.

I think this is deflection on your part. I say this because you actually haven't commented on whether IDs are difficult for blacks to obtain.

Of course you don't think Republicans efforts to target black voters is as important as some rando white persons thoughts on youtube. You're a racist. I wouldn't expect anything less.

Again, I don't think it's relevant to my point that liberals think blacks are too helpless to obtain IDs.

Was anyone else born in a segregated country and denied hospital services and proper documentation?

Are these people driving?

If that's your conclusion after you learn about black people born in the segregated South and denied proper services it's just more evidence of your racism.

What is that you so often Say? Oh yes: Boo-fucking-hoo.

Baker testified against the police and he maintains that the neck restraint killed Floyd. Cardiopulmonary arrest is simply the technical term for your heart stopping which it tends to do when deprived of oxygen.

It also does that when you have a lethal level of fentanyl in your system, which Floyd did.

That same autopsy said Floyd had a whole stew of drugs in his system and fentanyl in particular was at a lethal level.

The autopsy also said there were four blockages in his arteries and three of them were potentially fatal, meaning the blockage was about 70%.

The second autopsy was ordered by the family after the preliminary report released “revealed no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.”

Exactly. You don't do an autopsy to specifically look for a given cause of death, you do an autopsy to determine cause of death. This is why I say the family and the two hired MEs were biased.

The family simply didn't trust the police or the prosecutors or the medical examiners office.

Why not? The state ME ruled homicide so what was the problem?

Ultimately that preliminary report was correct and it was ruled subdural, restraint and neck compression. It doesn't mean he wasn't asphyxiated, it just means that the means by which he was deprived of oxygen wasn't "traumatic" in a medical sense.

Right. But how do they know it wasn't the drugs and the arterial blockages since he was complaining he couldn't breath before Chauvin had his knee on his neck?

That's what witnesses for interested parties do. The witness for the defense was brought in to say that neck compression didn't kill Floyd. Ultimately their testimony was less believable to the jury.

Which might only mean the jury was influenced by the public outrage.

Everyone in this country on both sides knew that if they found Chauvin not guilty the ensuing riots were inevitable and would have turned cities into Hiroshimas.

Again with these arguments that are basically admissions of your ignorance. Instead asking me over and over again if this and if that why don't you maybe try educating yourself before hand so you can present to me your argument rather than your ignorance?

2nd autopsy finds George Floyd died from asphyxia.

I KNOW the second autopsy said asphyxia. Did they find something Baker missed or did they find the same thing and just expanded on the ruling?

 

[Curried Goats]

I think you are but that's not the point. You know that false accusations and lies are a possibility when passing judgment on racism, homophobia, etc., but you accept this as collateral damage and being the nature of the beast. This does not jibe with your morality about people honoring historical figures and makes you look like a hypocrite.

Add hypocrit to the list of words who's definition alludes you.

1. I accept false accusations happen.
2. That false accusations happen don't mean any of my accusations are false.
3. I'm only responsible for my actions, not the possible actions of people who may accuse others erroneously.
4. This possibility exists for you as well yet it hasn't prevented you from passing judgement on me.
5. That makes you the hypocrit you moron. Not judging someone because of the possibility of erroneous judgement is your standard, not mine.

I've already explained this multiple times as well. But one more time for the reading impaired: They don't honor these people because they owned slaves. They honor them for their achievements in spite of their owning slaves.

Which even if true doesn't make my statement that they venerate slavers objectively false. It's still very much true that they venerate a slaver because Washington was a slaver. I'm the only one here with an argument that is objective.

Despite me telling you repeatedly why they honor historical figures, your bitch feelings have you obsessively continuing to ask about venerating slavers.

Because I'm not asking you to explain to me why, I'm simply wondering if you can accept objective facts or not.

And those who say he is, are they right? Or, are they closer to the mark than you are? If he's not transphobic, does this mean those who say he is are liars?

Jesus christ you still don't understand opinions.

No you haven't. Consistently calling me racist is not tolerance.

No shit.

So you don't advocate acceptance and tolerance?

Does it seem like it?

Answer the question: What if someone you call homophobe is, in fact, not a homophobe?

This is a stupid question. The set up of your premise already answers it for you. What happens is that I've accused someone falsely.

What position am I in to say their feelings are false? Really? You don't think I know better than you what MY feelings are?

Exactly. Apply that same logic to everyone you giant Dipshit. We know our feelings too. That's why I keep telling you opinions aren't true or false unless someone is lying about how they feel. I can feel you're a racist and you can feel like you're not a racist and both of our feelings can be true to ourselves.

Answer the question: If you know that both of your opinions are subjective, why would you take the risk of erring on the side of rash or possibly incorrect judgment?

Learn what opinions are you fucking moron. Jesus it isn't this hard.

You're too fucking stupid to understand that opinions can be objectively false. And before you say it, I'm talking about any kind of opinion in any context.

A good example in this vein is the Nick Sandmann incident in D.C. in 2019. After the first photo showed up on CNN showing Sandmann facing a Native American while wearing a MAGA hat, half the country opined that he was racist and was harassing Phillips. This turned out to be objectively false.

It doesn't turn out it was objectively false that he's a racist you fucking idiot, only that the claims he was harassing anyone were false. God dammit you're stupid.

I think every MAGAt hat wearer is a racist piece of trash. CNN losing a defamation case because they claimed he said something that he didn't, doesn't prove objectively that he isn't a racist. It proves a court of law thought CNN was wrong about what they claimed he said. They did rule that my opinion of him or any MAGA hat wearer is objectively false.

If taken separately, nothing. However, your saying that it was a slaver rebellion is false.

It's not. Just because it's not the framing you would use doesn't make any of those things objectively not true. The were slavers who rebelled against their nation.

It might be apt to say the Civil War was a slaver rebellion as slavery was more or less the issue but that's not what the Revolutionary War was about.

It was about slavers fighting for their slaver independence. It fits just fine. What we have is a difference of framing, not objective facts. Like the difference between calling it the Civil War and the War of Northern Aggression. Both are true, it just depends on what perspective you're looking at it from. I choose to look at the Revolutionary War from the perspective of the slaves rather than the slavers.

Nevertheless, I view Boko Haram as more deplorable than Washington.

I know, hence the cognitive dissonance.

And? That's irrelevant to why the war was fought.

You're framing it about why the war was fought, I'm framing it from who was fighting it and from my perspective they were just a bunch of slavers. Neither is objectively false yours just reveals the affinity you have for America’s nazis.

This all started when I told you about how some liberals think blacks are too helpless to acquire IDs. I say they are not. This is the only reason I brought it up. The North Carolina case is irrelevant here.

You brought it up to create a scenario where you think you come off looking better than white liberals. As a black voter I'm telling you that I don't give a shit about the ignorant beliefs of some rando white people you may or may not of saw on youtube, whos views you may or may not be properly expressing. Lots of white people have ignorant beliefs. Lots of people have ignorant beliefs. All this time I thought you were talking about white liberal politicians which is why I was countering with the aggregious acts of Republican politicians but you're just talking about rando white people you're assuming are liberal? Fuck man. Who cares? Why should that matter more to black voters than racist Republican attacks on black voting power?

The case only serves to show how a Republican district targeted an African American community.

Now, which one of our points do think is more pertinent to black voters? The sentiments of people you assume are liberal or the overt attempts to dilute black voting power by Republicans?

No, this is your issue, not mine. Remember, I'm the one who brought it up and I know why I did.

Yea, I brought it up because as a black voter I know what issues are more important to me.

I think this is deflection on your part. I say this because you actually haven't commented on whether IDs are difficult for blacks to obtain.


Again, I don't think it's relevant to my point that liberals think blacks are too helpless to obtain IDs.

I highly doubt that. I bet if you actually produced one of these comments we'd learn their concerns would be more about a combo of ability to get time off work, travel to what might be a busy DMV serving a large community and wait for what could be a lengthy amount of time, lacking proper paper work because you had the unfortunate luck to be born in the segregated South or yes, poverty. That doesn't make black people incapable of obtaining ID its just a recognition that these requirements make it a little bit harder to vote and these hardships are felt more by poor communities which black people belong to disportionately.

Are these people driving?

You tell me. Its your point as you keep reminding me.

It also does that when you have a lethal level of fentanyl in your system, which Floyd did.

He didn't and Baker testified that he didn't.

That same autopsy said Floyd had a whole stew of drugs in his system and fentanyl in particular was at a lethal level.

Which might of been contributing factors but weren't the cause of death.

The autopsy also said there were four blockages in his arteries and three of them were potentially fatal, meaning the blockage was about 70%.

If an officer sits on the neck of any fat American I'm sure you'd find the same, that doesn't make it OK to murder people with pre-existing health conditions.

Exactly. You don't do an autopsy to specifically look for a given cause of death, you do an autopsy to determine cause of death. This is why I say the family and the two hired MEs were biased.

And the defense hired their own. That's normal.

Why not? The state ME ruled homicide so what was the problem?

The preliminary report didn't rule on cause of death.

Right. But how do they know it wasn't the drugs and the arterial blockages since he was complaining he couldn't breath before Chauvin had his knee on his neck?

Their years of medical practice? How do you know?

Which might only mean the jury was influenced by the public outrage.

Might or was?

Everyone in this country on both sides knew that if they found Chauvin not guilty the ensuing riots were inevitable and would have turned cities into Hiroshimas.

I don't know that and I don't need you to pretend that you know on my behalf. I know that if I was a jurist I would decide on the evidence and not what the possible reactions of others would be. You're forming a disgusting opinion about the people on that jury that they would of sent an innocent man to jail out of fear. What if your opinion is wrong? What if?

I KNOW the second autopsy said asphyxia. Did they find something Baker missed or did they find the same thing and just expanded on the ruling?

That examiner agreed with Bakers conclusion on the stand. They're just doctors using different terminology to come to what is essentially the same conclusion. Instead of asphyxiate Baker is saying subdural compression of the neck which caused his heart to stop.

 

[Curried Goats]

Too late for me to edit but caught the elude/allude mistype and it's bothering me.

Also on the sandman point that was supposed to read that the court didn't rule that my opinion about him was objectively false.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Add hypocrit to the list of words who's definition alludes you.

1. I accept false accusations happen.

When they do, are they liars?

2. That false accusations happen don't mean any of my accusations are false.

I already know that at least one is false.

3. I'm only responsible for my actions, not the possible actions of people who may accuse others erroneously.

Didn't say you were.

4. This possibility exists for you as well yet it hasn't prevented you from passing judgement on me.

You passed judgment on me first, asswipe. This is, in part, what prompted me to call you a liar and a hypocrite in the first place.

I had my opinions about you but chose to keep them to myself as I didn't want the discussion to devolve into a street row shouting insults at each other. But you made that virtually impossible as your insults and judgments became more frequent and more venomous.

5. That makes you the hypocrit you moron. Not judging someone because of the possibility of erroneous judgement is your standard, not mine.

Which makes me more ethical than you.

Which even if true doesn't make my statement that they venerate slavers objectively false. It's still very much true that they venerate a slaver because Washington was a slaver. I'm the only one here with an argument that is objective.

Irrelevant. It's still not the reason the statues were put up.

Because I'm not asking you to explain to me why, I'm simply wondering if you can accept objective facts or not.

Because of your bitch feelings.

Jesus christ you still don't understand opinions.

Is it an objective fact that Chappelle is either transphobic or not transphobic?

No shit.

Then you're not tolerant.

Does it seem like it?

I guess not. So if you do not advocate acceptance and tolerance, why should I care one whit about your opinions on the statues?

This is a stupid question. The set up of your premise already answers it for you. What happens is that I've accused someone falsely.

Exactly.

This happens from time to time but that's not really the issue for me. The issue for me is that you have no moral qualms about innocents being falsely accused or accused for stupid reasons like cotton plants.

You and other twits like you have openly set out to shame, ridicule and intimidate those you see as racist and some do not deserve it. This is objective fact and another reason why I say you're a hypocrite.

It's convenient for self righteous punks like yourself because it doesn't have to be proven and there's no way to prove one is not racist. Once it's out, you never have to take it back and even if there is cause to do so, you won't.

Exactly. Apply that same logic to everyone you giant Dipshit. We know our feelings too. That's why I keep telling you opinions aren't true or false unless someone is lying about how they feel. I can feel you're a racist and you can feel like you're not a racist and both of our feelings can be true to ourselves.

It is either true or not true, depending on the trending definition of the week.

Like I said before, you bleating idiots can't even get your shit straight on what constitutes racism. Therefore, racism does not objectively exist.

Learn what opinions are you fucking moron. Jesus it isn't this hard.

Answer the question: If you know that both of your opinions are subjective, why would you take the risk of erring on the side of rash or possibly incorrect judgment?

Learn the difference between subjective opinion and objective truth. I understand, moron, that opinion is subjective but I don't think you understand that there is still an objective truth that exists, at least theoretically.

However, if my being a racist is not based on an objective truth then, as I said above, racism does not objectively exist.

It doesn't turn out it was objectively false that he's a racist you fucking idiot, only that the claims he was harassing anyone were false. God dammit you're stupid.

Wrong. Their opinion was based on an incorrect assessment of a set of factors and circumstances. Once that was found to be false, the racism or non-racism of Sandmann was moot and off the table.

I think every MAGAt hat wearer is a racist piece of trash.

Irrelevant.

CNN losing a defamation case because they claimed he said something that he didn't, doesn't prove objectively that he isn't a racist.

Wearing the hat didn't make him objectively a racist either.

It proves a court of law thought CNN was wrong about what they claimed he said. They did rule that my opinion of him or any MAGA hat wearer is objectively false.

Did you mean to say "..did NOT rule..."?

It's not. Just because it's not the framing you would use doesn't make any of those things objectively not true. The were slavers who rebelled against their nation.

American colonists who rebelled against their parent government.

Potato, potahto.

It was about slavers fighting for their slaver independence.

No, it wasn't.

It fits just fine. What we have is a difference of framing, not objective facts.

Framing is one thing, calling it a slaver rebellion is something else entirely. "Slaver rebellion" suggests that slavers rebelled over some disagreement over slavery in some way. They did not.

I know, hence the cognitive dissonance.

Meh.

You're framing it about why the war was fought, I'm framing it from who was fighting it and from my perspective they were just a bunch of slavers. Neither is objectively false yours just reveals the affinity you have for America’s nazis.

Yours just reveals the affinity you have for hyperbole.

You brought it up to create a scenario where you think you come off looking better than white liberals.

Smarter and with more common sense, yes.

As a black voter I'm telling you that I don't give a shit about the ignorant beliefs of some rando white people you may or may not of saw on youtube,

It's "...white people you may or may not HAVE SEEN on Youtube..."

whos views you may or may not be properly expressing.

Their views were expressed in the videos.

Lots of white people have ignorant beliefs.

Lots of black people have ignorant beliefs. So?

Lots of people have ignorant beliefs. All this time I thought you were talking about white liberal politicians which is why I was countering with the aggregious acts of Republican politicians

That's "...egregious acts...".

but you're just talking about rando white people you're assuming are liberal? Fuck man. Who cares? Why should that matter more to black voters than racist Republican attacks on black voting power?

If you're okay with white liberals thinking you're helpless children then I guess there's nothing else to say.

Now, which one of our points do think is more pertinent to black voters? The sentiments of people you assume are liberal or the overt attempts to dilute black voting power by Republicans?

Does it even matter that they were liberals?

Yea, I brought it up because as a black voter I know what issues are more important to me.

I don't care. It's irrelevant to my point.

I highly doubt that. I bet if you actually produced one of these comments we'd learn their concerns would be more about a combo of ability to get time off work, travel to what might be a busy DMV serving a large community and wait for what could be a lengthy amount of time, lacking proper paper work because you had the unfortunate luck to be born in the segregated South or yes, poverty.

Oh bullshit. I'm not buying that.

That doesn't make black people incapable of obtaining ID its just a recognition that these requirements make it a little bit harder to vote and these hardships are felt more by poor communities which black people belong to disportionately.

More bullshit.

You tell me. Its your point as you keep reminding me.

You're going to pretend you don't know that most blacks have driver's licenses?

He didn't and Baker testified that he didn't.

Maybe. But there's no doubt it aggravated the situation.

Which might of been contributing factors but weren't the cause of death.

If these were contributing factors then perhaps Floyd wouldn't have died by Chauvin's knee.

Personally, I think that if Floyd had not been stoked up on drugs, had not become highly agitated to the point of near panic and simply did what the cops asked, he might still be alive.

If an officer sits on the neck of any fat American I'm sure you'd find the same, that doesn't make it OK to murder people with pre-existing health conditions.

Is that you JoeB?

Sorry, you sounded like someone else. Joe has this ridiculous belief that cops are mind readers or somehow magically know when a suspect has existing health conditions.

And the defense hired their own. That's normal.

I'm sure it's been done before but it's not "normal". Usually independent autopsies are done if the cause of death is unknown, undetermined or questioned for whatever reason. In this case, the family did not question the state ME's findings, per se, they simply felt that the knee on the neck was not emphasized enough. This is why I think they were biased.

The state ME gave the prosecution and the family what they needed: Homicide at the hands of police. But for some reason that wasn't enough.

The preliminary report didn't rule on cause of death.

Yes, it did. The title of the autopsy report, to wit: "CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION"

The state ME ruled Floyd died from suffocation due to the neck compression.

Their years of medical practice? How do you know?

How do I know what?

Might or was?

What did I say?

I don't know that and I don't need you to pretend that you know on my behalf.

Oh yes you do. Don't play stupid with me. If you remember, all the riots during the summer of 2020 and into 2021, across hundreds of cities and towns in the U.S., the CHAZ in Portland, and protests in sixty other countries, causing billions in damage, were all because of Floyd's death.

With most of the country and half the world believing Floyd was murdered, if Chauvin had been acquitted, we'd still see the fires burning today and Chauvin's life wouldn't be worth a plugged nickel.

I know that if I was a jurist I would decide on the evidence and not what the possible reactions of others would be.

Are you that fucking naive?

You're forming a disgusting opinion about the people on that jury that they would of sent an innocent man to jail out of fear. What if your opinion is wrong? What if?

Innocent people have been sent to prison many times. Don't pretend you don't know that either.

That examiner agreed with Bakers conclusion on the stand. They're just doctors using different terminology to come to what is essentially the same conclusion. Instead of asphyxiate Baker is saying subdural compression of the neck which caused his heart to stop.

Right. So why the independent autopsy?

 

[Curried Goats]

When they do, are they liars?


I already know that at least one is false.


Didn't say you were.


You passed judgment on me first, asswipe. This is, in part, what prompted me to call you a liar and a hypocrite in the first place.

Again you don't know what a hypocrit is apparently. It doesn't matter who passed judgement first. Only one of us suggested passing judgement was wrong and yet is still here doing it. That's you. That makes you the hypocrit you moron.

Which makes me more ethical than you.

1. That would require you to first actually follow your own advice and refrain from judgement.

2. That would only make you more ethical than me in your own opinion.

Irrelevant. It's still not the reason the statues were put up.

Your point is irrelevant. The entire purpose of my argument was to point out, objectively, that Founder veneraters are slaver veneraters.

Because of your bitch feelings.

No. That one is just a fact. Still can't grasp the difference can you?

Is it an objective fact that Chappelle is either transphobic or not transphobic?

I don't know and you don't know either. All you have is an opinion.

Then you're not tolerant.

I guess not. So if you do not advocate acceptance and tolerance, why should I care one whit about your opinions on the statues?

I don't care if you care. I'm not here looking your sympathy. I'm just here telling you that we're coming for your culture and that I mean to do that through shame and ridicule. I'm explaining to you objectives and strategy, not looking for you sympathy.

You and other twits like you have openly set out to shame, ridicule and intimidate those you see as racist and some do not deserve it. This is objective fact and another reason why I say you're a hypocrite.

You're feelings aren't objective facts you moron. What you feel people deserve or don't deserve is entirely subjective.

It's convenient for self righteous punks like yourself because it doesn't have to be proven and there's no way to prove one is not racist. Once it's out, you never have to take it back and even if there is cause to do so, you won't.

I do find it a convenient and effective tool, thank you. People like to imagine themselves righteous and that can be used to push agendas. You don't heard people like you do cattle. You do it by playing to their egos and emotions.

It is either true or not true, depending on the trending definition of the week.

Like I said before, you bleating idiots can't even get your shit straight on what constitutes racism. Therefore, racism does not objectively exist.

Racism doesn't stop existing just because you're an emotional little bitch.

Answer the question: If you know that both of your opinions are subjective, why would you take the risk of erring on the side of rash or possibly incorrect judgment?

I answered. I don't accept your premise that my opinions are rash. That's your rash opinion.

Learn the difference between subjective opinion and objective truth. I understand, moron, that opinion is subjective but I don't think you understand that there is still an objective truth that exists, at least theoretically.

Of course there is a difference between opinion and objective truth. Objective truths are things that aren't influenced by our feelings. So if someone has the opinion that the earth is flat that can be objectively determined. The shape of the Earth isn't related to our feelings. Our opinions about people are all about feelings. There is no way to separate your feelings from my feelings to arrive at objective truth. This relates back to our conversation about Washington. I make mine an objective argument and allow people to form their own feelings about it. Whether Washington was a slaver isn't related to my feelings or your feelings. It's just a question of whether Washington enslaved people or not and he did. How you feel about that is entirely subjective and the same goes for how I feel about you. I can acknowledge some things are objectively true. It's you that seems to have the trouble accepting subjectivity. I can accept that you don't feel like Washington was a piece of human trash. I feel differently. There are I suppose instances of objective racism. Like Washington and the Founders objectively treating black people less than whites but that's an action. Objectively actions occurred or they didn't. When we're discussing feelings it's all subjective.

Wrong. Their opinion was based on an incorrect assessment of a set of factors and circumstances. Once that was found to be false, the racism or non-racism of Sandmann was moot and off the table.

My feelings of whether Sandmann is a racist or not didn't have anything to do with what he may or may not have said to that Native American but his choice to wear a MAGA hat and support Donald Trump.

Wearing the hat didn't make him objectively a racist either.

I never claimed it did. It made him subjectively racist, to me.

American colonists who rebelled against their parent government.

Potato, potahto.

Exactly. I'm going to frame it my way for political purposes, you can frame it your way for yours. I'm just wondering if you're capable of acknowledging that my framing isn't objectively false, just not how you'd subjectively choose to frame it. (Because you're a racist, or so I'll argue ).

No, it wasn't.


Framing is one thing, calling it a slaver rebellion is something else entirely. "Slaver rebellion" suggests that slavers rebelled over some disagreement over slavery in some way. They did not.

My suggestion is to emphasize that they were slavers which isn't objectively wrong, is it?

Meh.


Yours just reveals the affinity you have for hyperbole.

It's politically useful.

If you're okay with white liberals thinking you're helpless children then I guess there's nothing else to say.

What does me not being okay with it look like? Would that look like me being a Republican where the Republican nominee and leader thinks Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim? Where Republican voters think Chauvin didn't murder unarmed black man crying out for his mother? That the McMichaels had a right to chase down Ahmaud Arbery in their cars and execute him? Would it look like me joining the party that "surgically targets black voters"? Yea, black people in this country don't have a lot of great options at the moment but the ignorant views of some white liberals really isn't high on my list of issues.

You're going to pretend you don't know that most blacks have driver's licenses?

I'm not pretending anything. I told you at the start that I'm not joining you in making any assumptions. I'm only acknowledging the objective facts of the case. Republican legislators targeted black voters to dilute their voting power. It doesn't matter that it wouldn't of affected most, it matters that they even attempted it at all. It's an acknowledgement that their policies are unattractive to black voters so they're not even trying to win them over, just trying to harass and hamper their vote.

Maybe. But there's no doubt it aggravated the situation.

If these were contributing factors then perhaps Floyd wouldn't have died by Chauvin's knee.

You mean if he had been in perfect health? That shouldn't be necessary for a police officer to not murder you publicly over the course of 9 minutes.

Personally, I think that if Floyd had not been stoked up on drugs, had not become highly agitated to the point of near panic and simply did what the cops asked, he might still be alive.

Or if a racist piece shit hasn't murdered him.

Is that you JoeB?

Sorry, you sounded like someone else. Joe has this ridiculous belief that cops are mind readers or somehow magically know when a suspect has existing health conditions.

A jury convicted Chauvin because they determined any reasonable person would of acted differently. No mind reading powers necessary.

I'm sure it's been done before but it's not "normal". Usually independent autopsies are done if the cause of death is unknown, undetermined or questioned for whatever reason. In this case, the family did not question the state ME's findings, per se, they simply felt that the knee on the neck was not emphasized enough. This is why I think they were biased.

No shit the family was biased over the death of their loved one. You might also be surprised to discover the defense witness was biased for the defense. Jesus christ ....

Yes, it did. The title of the autopsy report, to wit: "CARDIOPULMONARY ARREST COMPLICATING LAW ENFORCEMENT SUBDUAL, RESTRAINT, AND NECK COMPRESSION"

The state ME ruled Floyd died from suffocation due to the neck compression.

The full autopsy report is not the same thing as a preliminary report you damn moron. I even linked to an article that said the family autopsy was ordered after the preliminary findings.

Oh yes you do. Don't play stupid with me. If you remember, all the riots during the summer of 2020 and into 2021, across hundreds of cities and towns in the U.S., the CHAZ in Portland, and protests in sixty other countries, causing billions in damage, were all because of Floyd's death.

With most of the country and half the world believing Floyd was murdered, if Chauvin had been acquitted, we'd still see the fires burning today and Chauvin's life wouldn't be worth a plugged nickel.


Are you that fucking naive?

Are you giving an opinion about the jury or asking me more what if questions? Take a stand you coward and stop looking for positive reinforcement from me.

Innocent people have been sent to prison many times. Don't pretend you don't know that either.

I don't think this is one of those times.

Right. So why the independent autopsy?

I already shared my opinion that I supported with evidence. Namely that the family didn't trust the police or M.E. office and ordered their own autopsy after the preliminary report.

 

[MisterBeale]

What bullshit? Can you point to anything I said that was erroneous? Washington was a slaver, it's not my problem if hearing that hurts your feelings.

Name a ruler on the planet that did not own humans in the distinct past.

In America, Europe or hell, even Africa all of the nations ruling elites did. It was just common practice.
In the past, there were slaves of many different backgrounds and ethnicities.

It is post modernist, globalist hokum to erase a nation's cultural identity.

It matter very little if anything you wrote was erroneous, it is completely irrelevant. Who cares if he was a slaver, every ruling elite on the planet was. It is no big deal. We deal with folks according to the morality of that time, not according to ours. Duh.

Get lost with that garbage.

 

[Curried Goats]

Name a ruler on the planet that did not own humans in the distinct past.

What does this bit of deflection have to do with my point about Washington being a piece of shit slaver?

In America, Europe or hell, even Africa all of the nations ruling elites did. It was just common practice.
In the past, there were slaves of many different backgrounds and ethnicities.

It is post modernist, globalist hokum to erase a nation's cultural identity.

No, that's just the nature of life. Things that come after replace the things that came before.

It matter very little if anything you wrote was erroneous, it is completely irrelevant. Who cares if he was a slaver, every ruling elite on the planet was. It is no big deal. We deal with folks according to the morality of that time, not according to ours. Duh.

Well some people do apparently or there wouldn't be a push to remove his statues.

Get lost with that garbage.

Keep your majority or get replaced. The Founders did it to the natives. You didn't think anyone would do it to you?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Again you don't know what a hypocrit is apparently. It doesn't matter who passed judgement first.

Yes, it does.

Only one of us suggested passing judgement was wrong and yet is still here doing it. That's you. That makes you the hypocrit you moron.

I never said passing judgment was wrong. This is patently false.

What I said was to give more thought and circumspection before passing judgment.

1. That would require you to first actually follow your own advice and refrain from judgement.

Nope, never said this.

2. That would only make you more ethical than me in your own opinion.

Irrelevant. You were much quicker at passing judgment and did so without a clear, mutual understanding of what constitutes racism. Furthermore, even after being asked numerous times to give evidence or citation for this judgment, you refused.

Your point is irrelevant. The entire purpose of my argument was to point out, objectively, that Founder veneraters are slaver veneraters.

That's just it: objectively, this is not true.

By saying "slaver venerators", the rules of semantics suggests this means they venerate these people for being slavers. That's not true.

The same rules of semantics would suggest that a more accurate way to express this - according to the intent of the so called "venerators" - is: They honor historical figures who were also slave owners.

No. That one is just a fact. Still can't grasp the difference can you?

The difference between my bitch feelings and your bitch feelings? Maybe not.

I don't know and you don't know either. All you have is an opinion.

I never expressed an opinion on the matter. But nevertheless, the question remains:

Is it an objective fact that Chappelle is either transphobic or not transphobic?

I don't care if you care. I'm not here looking your sympathy. I'm just here telling you that we're coming for your culture and that I mean to do that through shame and ridicule. I'm explaining to you objectives and strategy, not looking for you sympathy.

Do you mean to tell me that this crusade is NOT rooted in the concept of diversity, equity and inclusion (acceptance and tolerance)?

You're feelings aren't objective facts you moron. What you feel people deserve or don't deserve is entirely subjective.

This is not about my feelings, it's about fact: some who are called racist do not deserve the appellation.

You've already acknowledged that false accusations occur.

I do find it a convenient and effective tool, thank you.

...for being a douchebag.

People like to imagine themselves righteous and that can be used to push agendas. You don't heard people like you do cattle. You do it by playing to their egos and emotions.

It's HERD people like cattle, you nitwit.

Racism doesn't stop existing just because you're an emotional little bitch.

Irrelevant. I'll bet you can't even give me a complete definition of racism outside of the dictionary definition.

I answered. I don't accept your premise that my opinions are rash. That's your rash opinion.

This applies to anyone, not just you.

So again: If you know that both of your opinions are subjective, why would you take the risk of erring on the side of rash or possibly incorrect judgment?

Of course there is a difference between opinion and objective truth. Objective truths are things that aren't influenced by our feelings.

Exactly.

So if someone has the opinion that the earth is flat that can be objectively determined. The shape of the Earth isn't related to our feelings. Our opinions about people are all about feelings. There is no way to separate your feelings from my feelings to arrive at objective truth. This relates back to our conversation about Washington. I make mine an objective argument and allow people to form their own feelings about it. Whether Washington was a slaver isn't related to my feelings or your feelings. It's just a question of whether Washington enslaved people or not and he did. How you feel about that is entirely subjective and the same goes for how I feel about you. I can acknowledge some things are objectively true. It's you that seems to have the trouble accepting subjectivity. I can accept that you don't feel like Washington was a piece of human trash. I feel differently. There are I suppose instances of objective racism. Like Washington and the Founders objectively treating black people less than whites but that's an action. Objectively actions occurred or they didn't. When we're discussing feelings it's all subjective.

That was a lot of sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

The only objective truth to your argument is that Washington owned slaves. That's it. Everything that stems from that is your subjective opinion.

We both accept that opinions are subjective but even then we have to ask: How and why did you arrive at a given opinion or viewpoint?

My difficulty is understanding your reasoning behind your opinion that I am racist. What it ultimately boils down to is that I disagreed with you on something. Beyond that I have said nothing that could be construed as offensive, insulting, derogatory or racist about blacks. In fact, when I pay the compliment that blacks are as capable as whites, even then I am called racist.

With race hustlers like you, you just can't fucking win.

My feelings of whether Sandmann is a racist or not didn't have anything to do with what he may or may not have said to that Native American but his choice to wear a MAGA hat and support Donald Trump.

Irrelevant. The reason everybody else did was based on a lie promoted by the media.

I never claimed it did. It made him subjectively racist, to me.

So what is objective racism?

Exactly. I'm going to frame it my way for political purposes, you can frame it your way for yours. I'm just wondering if you're capable of acknowledging that my framing isn't objectively false, just not how you'd subjectively choose to frame it. (Because you're a racist, or so I'll argue ).

The way you frame it, it IS objectively false. As I explained above, the only objective truth is that Washington owned slaves and that needs no framing by either me or you. Everything else is subjective, even your assertion that they are venerating slavers.

My suggestion is to emphasize that they were slavers which isn't objectively wrong, is it?

Emphasizing that they were slavers and calling it a slaver rebellion are two different things. You can emphasize that they were slavers without conflating the purpose of the war.

It's politically useful.

It's intellectually lazy.

What does me not being okay with it look like? Would that look like me being a Republican where the Republican nominee and leader thinks Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim? Where Republican voters think Chauvin didn't murder unarmed black man crying out for his mother? That the McMichaels had a right to chase down Ahmaud Arbery in their cars and execute him? Would it look like me joining the party that "surgically targets black voters"? Yea, black people in this country don't have a lot of great options at the moment but the ignorant views of some white liberals really isn't high on my list of issues.

Like I said, there's nothing else to say.

I'm not pretending anything.

You're pretending you don't know that most blacks drive. I know they do and so do you. You just don't want to admit it because you are loathe to concede a point no matter how right it is.

I told you at the start that I'm not joining you in making any assumptions.

Bullshit. Your assessment of me as a racist is, by your own admission, an assumption.

I'm only acknowledging the objective facts of the case. Republican legislators targeted black voters to dilute their voting power. It doesn't matter that it wouldn't of affected most, it matters that they even attempted it at all. It's an acknowledgement that their policies are unattractive to black voters so they're not even trying to win them over, just trying to harass and hamper their vote.

And as I said, it is irrelevant to my point.

You mean if he had been in perfect health? That shouldn't be necessary for a police officer to not murder you publicly over the course of 9 minutes.

What was necessary was restraining him because he was highly agitated due to the drugs.

The knee on the neck was not necessary and apparently against procedure, but he did need to be restrained.

Or if a racist piece shit hasn't murdered him.

This implies intent. I don't think Chauvin set out to murder Floyd.

A jury convicted Chauvin because they determined any reasonable person would of acted differently. No mind reading powers necessary.

That's not necessarily grounds for a murder charge. Some have died in police custody even without unreasonable restraint or procedure.

No shit the family was biased over the death of their loved one. You might also be surprised to discover the defense witness was biased for the defense. Jesus christ ....

Don't be an idiot. They were biased towards a ruling of asphyxiation by the knee. The ruling was already homicide. It made no sense.

The full autopsy report is not the same thing as a preliminary report you damn moron.

I have a copy on PDF of the initial autopsy and it says noting about it being preliminary.

I even linked to an article that said the family autopsy was ordered after the preliminary findings.

As I said, Baker's autopsy report was an autopsy. It was not preliminary. The Floyd family legal team probably just called it that for their own reasons. Plus, if Baker's autopsy was merely preliminary then all they had to do was wait for him to conduct the full autopsy. There would have been no reason to hire independent MEs if that were the case.

Are you giving an opinion about the jury or asking me more what if questions? Take a stand you coward and stop looking for positive reinforcement from me.

I'll bet you forgot already why that was brought up.

I don't think this is one of those times.

Irrelevant. It could have been one of those times. That's the point.

 

[Curried Goats]

Irrelevant. You were much quicker at passing judgment and did so without a clear, mutual understanding of what constitutes racism. Furthermore, even after being asked numerous times to give evidence or citation for this judgment, you refused.

Clear mutual understanding of what constitutes racism? What you mean is we disagree. I find your admiration and respect for people who kept black men, women and children as property to be racist. You disagree. We also disagree on what constitutes rash judgment but that doesn't stop you from forming opinions about me. Unlike you though I'm not crying like a bitch because you have an opinion of me I disagree with. That's life you pussy. Don't throw stones if you're afraid to be hit

That's just it: objectively, this is not true.

You're a complete moron. It is objectively true. People who venerate Washington venerate a slaver. The why of it doesn't change those objective facts.

Washington = A slaver (this statement is objectively true)

Therefore, it's objectively true that to venerate Washington is to venerate a slaver. I'm simply substituting Washington for the phrase A slaver which we see above passes an objective test. That seems to hold for what I know about semantics and truth conditions, which admittedly I just Googled. If I said their veneration of Washington equals a veneration of slavery then that would be objectively false but that's not what I've been saying.

By saying "slaver venerators", the rules of semantics suggests this means they venerate these people for being slavers. That's not true.

The same rules of semantics would suggest that a more accurate way to express this - according to the intent of the so called "venerators" - is: They honor historical figures who were also slave owners.

Are you the arbiter of rules of semantics? Since when? What even are these "rules" and where do they suggest your way is more accurate than mine? Do you have any other source than your say so? There's a lot of white privilege in your commentary. You think you're the arbiter of opinions and speech, apparently.

Is it an objective fact that Chappelle is either transphobic or not transphobic?

Is it an objective fact that my judgements are rash?

I'm not dodging your question I'm simply trying to explain how irrelevant I find it. I don't know if we can ever objectively know what's in a person's heart unless by chance they tell us. All we have to judge people by are their actions and our opinions of those actions. You feel my judgements are made rashly but you can't objectively know that. Given that, what's the point of this question? To imply that one shouldn't judge someone unless they know their opinion is objectively true? If so then I'll believe you actually believe that when you follow it yourself.

Do you mean to tell me that this crusade is NOT rooted in the concept of diversity, equity and inclusion (acceptance and tolerance)?

No. Self interest. My family is largely black and brown and so for purely selfish reasons I'd like to see white racist slave culture made extinct.

This is not about my feelings, it's about fact: some who are called racist do not deserve the appellation.

You've already acknowledged that false accusations occur.

What point is that fact relevant to? Some people will be falsely accused by others. And? I have no control over that. That's life.

So again: If you know that both of your opinions are subjective, why would you take the risk of erring on the side of rash or possibly incorrect judgment?

Because obviously I don't think my opinions are rash or wrong, you do. These are stupid questions.

The only objective truth to your argument is that Washington owned slaves. That's it. Everything that stems from that is your subjective opinion.

I said as much in the beginning. I said my argument was both objective and subjective. I don't care that you or some venerate slavers. I'm confident that one day anti-slaver veneraters will outnumber you because most people already think slavery is wrong. All that's left is to break the mythology and make believe that exists around the slaver Founders as we did around the slaver Confederates.

My difficulty is understanding your reasoning behind your opinion that I am racist. What it ultimately boils down to is that I disagreed with you on something. Beyond that I have said nothing that could be construed as offensive, insulting, derogatory or racist about blacks. In fact, when I pay the compliment that blacks are as capable as whites, even then I am called racist.

It's a number of things. First and foremost is your respect and admiration for people who kept black men, women and children as property. That's just as disgusting to me as admiring Hitler and the accomplishments of his Nazi State would be to a Jew. Your opinion on George Floyd's murder. Your inference that as a black voter I should be concerned with the opinions of ignorant white liberals rather than Republicans actively trying to minimize our vote. You thinking you're niece's black husband makes your point stronger. It's a bunch of things.

With race hustlers like you, you just can't fucking win.

Well that's the other thing that interests me. I don't care about your opinion of me as a race hustler I'm wondering how you plan to win. Is your strategy to call people who question your love of people who kept black children as property, race hustlers? OK. For some reason I don't think it's going to have the effect you think it will.

Irrelevant. The reason everybody else did was based on a lie promoted by the media.

You don't know that. That's your assumption. Maybe like me they think anyone in a MAGA is a racist. Most of the people in my family feel the same way as I do about MAGA hat wearers. To us you might as well all be wearing white hoods.

So what is objective racism?

Owning black men, women and children as property for one. Celebrating the accomplishments of people who do for another.

The way you frame it, it IS objectively false. As I explained above, the only objective truth is that Washington owned slaves and that needs no framing by either me or you. Everything else is subjective, even your assertion that they are venerating slavers.

Owning black people as property is objectively racist.

Emphasizing that they were slavers and calling it a slaver rebellion are two different things. You can emphasize that they were slavers without conflating the purpose of the war.

I can use my speech to emphasize whatever I feel like. Cry about it.

You're pretending you don't know that most blacks drive. I know they do and so do you. You just don't want to admit it because you are loathe to concede a point no matter how right it is.

Concede what point? What point are you trying to make? I've been asking you to explain that from the start. That most black people drive (which I don't even know is true but let's assume so for the sake of argument) that still shouldn't ease Black voter concerns over Republican Voter laws that have been found to target black voters. If we allow Republicans to hamper the vote of even a minority of black voters that could be enough for them to eek out a victory.

What was necessary was restraining him because he was highly agitated due to the drugs.

The knee on the neck was not necessary and apparently against procedure, but he did need to be restrained.

They had him restrained for nine minutes until his body went limp and lifeless. Defending this as a need for restraint is as absurd and disgusting to me as it was to a jury. Thankfully your brand of mutant deplorable is on the way out, legally and socially.

This implies intent. I don't think Chauvin set out to murder Floyd.

According to the jury there was no other reasonable conclusion to come to after watching him callously kneel on a man's neck for nine minutes.

That's not necessarily grounds for a murder charge. Some have died in police custody even without unreasonable restraint or procedure.

It was in this case.

Don't be an idiot. They were biased towards a ruling of asphyxiation by the knee. The ruling was already homicide. It made no sense.

It makes no sense for someone trying to find conspiracy. It makes perfect sense to me.

I have a copy on PDF of the initial autopsy and it says noting about it being preliminary.

Here's an article from the New York Times that clarifies it was the prosecutors office that released a preliminary report before the autopsy was complete, which is what probably caused the family to want a second opinion.

George Floyd’s Cause of Death Is Crucial in Trial. Forensic Pathologists Explain. (Published 2021)

The medical examiner’s office had not finished its investigation when prosecutors filed a charging document saying that preliminary findings had shown no physical evidence to support a diagnosis of “traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.” It said that the combined effects of police restraint, underlying health conditions including heart disease and “any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death.”

Forensic pathologists said that in high-profile cases, it can be problematic to release findings early because they may be misinterpreted or incomplete. “I basically never release preliminary cause of death,” Dr. Banerjee said.

As I said, Baker's autopsy report was an autopsy. It was not preliminary. The Floyd family legal team probably just called it that for their own reasons. Plus, if Baker's autopsy was merely preliminary then all they had to do was wait for him to conduct the full autopsy. There would have been no reason to hire independent MEs if that were the case.

All you have are weird conspiracy and innuendo that isn't going to change the conviction.

Irrelevant. It could have been one of those times. That's the point.

It could of also been aliens I guess if we're just listing things it could of been instead of what it was which was murder.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Clear mutual understanding of what constitutes racism? What you mean is we disagree. I find your admiration and respect for people who kept black men, women and children as property to be racist. You disagree.

Irrelevant. Unless you have or can present an objective understanding or definition of racism, your opinion doesn't mean shit. And not just in this discussion but at any time with anyone in any discussion.

We also disagree on what constitutes rash judgment but that doesn't stop you from forming opinions about me.

Irrelevant. The distinction is rash judgment, not judgment. Yours was rash and was based on circumstantial evidence. Mine wasn't given until days into the discussion and only after clear cases of hypocrisy and lying.

You're a complete moron. It is objectively true. People who venerate Washington venerate a slaver. The why of it doesn't change those objective facts.

Yes, it does. We're disagreeing on a minor theoretical point of morality. This doesn't mean I'm stupid.

What you're saying is not that complicated and is easy to understand. I just don't agree with it.

Washington = A slaver (this statement is objectively true)

Yes.

Therefore, it's objectively true that to venerate Washington is to venerate a slaver.

Wrong. It's objectively true that Washington was a slaver but what's not objectively true is that they are immorally venerating a slaver since, as we both agree, morality is a concept and subjective. Even the word "venerate' is subjective in this case. Like I said, this is your word, not mine.

Are you the arbiter of rules of semantics?

An arbiter is not needed since the rules have been established.

Since when? What even are these "rules" and where do they suggest your way is more accurate than mine? Do you have any other source than your say so?

Google it.

There's a lot of white privilege in your commentary. You think you're the arbiter of opinions and speech, apparently.

Oh don't play that White Privilege card bullshit just because you don't understand an already existing concept. That's beneath even you.

Is it an objective fact that my judgements are rash?

If they're wrong, yes.

So answer the question: Is it an objective truth that Chappelle is either transphobic or not transphobic?

I'm not dodging your question I'm simply trying to explain how irrelevant I find it. I don't know if we can ever objectively know what's in a person's heart unless by chance they tell us.

I said "either transphobic or not transphobic". I'm not asking if he is or not, I'm asking if there is an objective truth by which we can measure transphobia. The same question applies to racism or any other type of prejudice.

All we have to judge people by are their actions and our opinions of those actions. You feel my judgements are made rashly but you can't objectively know that.

I can if I know I'm not racist.

No. Self interest. My family is largely black and brown and so for purely selfish reasons I'd like to see white racist slave culture made extinct.

Help me out here. The root of the problem with "racist slave culture" is lack of acceptance and tolerance, yes? If so, do you really believe that more of the same is going to have different results? Isn't that part of the definition of insanity?

What point is that fact relevant to? Some people will be falsely accused by others. And? I have no control over that. That's life.

You have control over yourself, don't you? Dumbass. And like I said, you've already made one false accusation.

Because obviously I don't think my opinions are rash or wrong, you do. These are stupid questions.

But you have been wrong.

I said as much in the beginning. I said my argument was both objective and subjective. I don't care that you or some venerate slavers. I'm confident that one day anti-slaver veneraters will outnumber you because most people already think slavery is wrong.

You might be surprised to know that even the "slaver venerators" think slavery is wrong. I know I do.

It's a number of things. First and foremost is your respect and admiration for people who kept black men, women and children as property.

And you have no problem steamrolling innocents in your crusade.

You are no different than me or anyone else when it comes to conflicted morality. I've said before that your moral character is no better than mine. Not from what I've seen so far.

On a side note, my niece has two black children from her marriage to the black man and I love them dearly. To both of them, I am their favorite uncle. I also have much respect for their father. He is a true man of honor.

I've had many black friends over the years - most of them coworkers - and none of them ever said I was racist.

Like IM2, you might say this means nothing and that may or may not be true. But what IS true is that racism is not as simple as you make it out to be.

That's just as disgusting to me as admiring Hitler and the accomplishments of his Nazi State would be to a Jew. Your opinion on George Floyd's murder.

Explain. How does this one make me racist?

Your inference that as a black voter I should be concerned with the opinions of ignorant white liberals rather than Republicans actively trying to minimize our vote.

How does this one make me racist?

You thinking you're niece's black husband makes your point stronger. It's a bunch of things.

So merely citing another black person who agrees with me that the racism crusade is out of hand makes me racist? Explain that one.

Well that's the other thing that interests me. I don't care about your opinion of me as a race hustler I'm wondering how you plan to win.

Win what?

Is your strategy to call people who question your love of people who kept black children as property, race hustlers? OK.

My "Love" of people..."? That's a bit much.

Anyway, I call you a race hustler because people like you have it rigged. All you have to do is throw the word out there, which you do at the drop of a hat. When you do, as I said, you never have to take it back and you never have to prove it (you won't even try when asked). You put the burden on the accused to prove his innocence, which is logically impossible to begin with, and is ignored if they try.

It's almost like a circular reasoning fallacy:

"Jim is racist."

"What makes you say that?"

"He says racist things."

"What make these things racist?"

"Because Jim is racist."

You don't know that. That's your assumption. Maybe like me they think anyone in a MAGA is a racist. Most of the people in my family feel the same way as I do about MAGA hat wearers. To us you might as well all be wearing white hoods.

Bull - fucking - shit. Everybody thought Sandmann was harassing Nathan Phillips (the Native American) and getting in his face. All this was assumed because of one picture and a brief video. Days later a longer video came out that revealed that Sandmann harassed no one and in fact, Phillips approached him and started banging his drum in Sandmann's face.

There's much more to the story but that's the Reader's Digest version. Many of the celebrities who criticized Sandmann and even threatened violence on Twitter had to go back and delete their tweets. The ladies of The View of course had much to say about Sandmann before the longer video came out and after it did come out, even they asked the question: "How did we get it so wrong?"

I know this story like the back of my hand and researched it and followed it because the behavior of Democrats and liberals at the time was atrocious. So no, it's not an assumption.

Owning black men, women and children as property for one. Celebrating the accomplishments of people who do for another.

You give only two examples here and only one can be taken as objectively racist.

I ask the question because, as I said before, it changes every day.

Owning black people as property is objectively racist.

That goes without saying. But it's only one example.

I can use my speech to emphasize whatever I feel like. Cry about it.

Irrelevant. I didn't say you couldn't or shouldn't. I said they were different things.

Concede what point? What point are you trying to make?

That most blacks drive, you idiot.

I've been asking you to explain that from the start.

Explain what?

That most black people drive (which I don't even know is true but let's assume so for the sake of argument)

I'm calling bullshit on this one.

that still shouldn't ease Black voter concerns over Republican Voter laws that have been found to target black voters.

Okay. It's still not relevant to what I was talking about.

They had him restrained for nine minutes until his body went limp and lifeless.

Maybe a heart attack from the drugs and stress.

Defending this as a need for restraint is as absurd and disgusting to me as it was to a jury.

I said he needed to be restrained asswipe, I did not say he needed to be restrained with a knee on his neck.

Jesus Christ, would you please take a reading comprehension course?

According to the jury there was no other reasonable conclusion to come to after watching him callously kneel on a man's neck for nine minutes.

NINE MINUTES!NINE MINUTES! NINE MINUTES!

Everybody makes much of the nine minutes but that still doesn't prove murder nor does it prove this is what killed him.

It was in this case.

No it wasn't. I don't believe for one second that Chauvin meant to kill Floyd.

It makes no sense for someone trying to find conspiracy. It makes perfect sense to me.

What conspiracy?

Here's an article from the New York Times that clarifies it was the prosecutors office that released a preliminary report before the autopsy was complete, which is what probably caused the family to want a second opinion.

George Floyd’s Cause of Death Is Crucial in Trial. Forensic Pathologists Explain. (Published 2021)

I hit a paywall.

The medical examiner’s office had not finished its investigation when prosecutors filed a charging document saying that preliminary findings had shown no physical evidence to support a diagnosis of “traumatic asphyxia or strangulation.” It said that the combined effects of police restraint, underlying health conditions including heart disease and “any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death.”

Forensic pathologists said that in high-profile cases, it can be problematic to release findings early because they may be misinterpreted or incomplete. “I basically never release preliminary cause of death,” Dr. Banerjee said.

It sounds to me like the prosecutors jumped the gun. They should have just waited for the full report.

All you have are weird conspiracy and innuendo that isn't going to change the conviction.

Again, what conspiracy? And, I know damn well it won't change the conviction.

It could of also been aliens I guess if we're just listing things it could of been instead of what it was which was murder.

It's "...could HAVE also..." and "...could HAVE been..."

Anyway, I'm sticking with; it could be one of those times an innocent man was convicted.

Something you need to understand where I'm coming from here. For me, it has less to do with Floyd being black and more to do with what I saw as a symptom of the anti-police movement that was going hot at the time.

The optics of the whole thing was damning. But when I sit back and look at the bigger picture of Floyd's drug and health problems (he was a walking heart attack waiting to happen and was a candidate for a triple bypass), his elevated stress in the situation, the way the prosecution and the family attorneys conducted their business, something just seems off to me.

 

[Curried Goats]

Irrelevant. Unless you have or can present an objective understanding or definition of racism, your opinion doesn't mean shit. And not just in this discussion but at any time with anyone in any discussion.

That's your opinion which equally means shit to me. Learn what opinions are guy.

Irrelevant. The distinction is rash judgment, not judgment. Yours was rash and was based on circumstantial evidence. Mine wasn't given until days into the discussion and only after clear cases of hypocrisy and lying.

Still an opinion you fuckwit.

Yes, it does. We're disagreeing on a minor theoretical point of morality. This doesn't mean I'm stupid.

It's not your opinion on morality that's stupid. All of those are equally subjective. It's your inability to discern objective truth.

Wrong. It's objectively true that Washington was a slaver but what's not objectively true is that they are immorally venerating a slaver

See. I knew my word choice has gotten under your skin. The part about immorally venerating, that's your bitch feelings on display. As I said, feel free to disagree that venerating a slaver is immoral. I can't prove that it is immoral objectively because it's only immoral subjectively. It is objectively true that they venerate a slaver though because Washington was a slaver. It's the implication from that objective truth that has you all hot and bothered.


pst... That's sorta the point.

since, as we both agree, morality is a concept and subjective. Even the word "venerate' is subjective in this case. Like I said, this is your word, not mine.

Venerate is not subjective. It means to honor which statues and monuments do. Now you're just being a big bitch. Take your medicine bitch. As I said from the beginning I'm using an objective truth to suggest you and your ilk are human pieces of shit, subjectively.

An arbiter is not needed since the rules have been established.

Google it.

I did. Nothing I've read confirms anything you've claimed. Can you back it up? Because I don't think you can. I think you're just full of shit.

Semantics - Wikipedia

So answer the question: Is it an objective truth that Chappelle is either transphobic or not transphobic?

I'll answer that question when you answer whether you think my judgements are objectively rash because I don't believe you even fully understand the concept.

I said "either transphobic or not transphobic". I'm not asking if he is or not, I'm asking if there is an objective truth by which we can measure transphobia. The same question applies to racism or any other type of prejudice.

It applies to any type of judgement about someone you dumb fuck. Including yours.

I can if I know I'm not racist.

We can't know if you're lying or not so your insistence that you're not racist doesn't mean shit.

Help me out here. The root of the problem with "racist slave culture" is lack of acceptance and tolerance, yes? If so, do you really believe that more of the same is going to have different results? Isn't that part of the definition of insanity?

I've never said anything about acceptance and tolerance. Not one thing. You have and you keep trying to attribute it to me. The problem with racists is that they're racist pieces of shit. They'll support cops who kneel on a black man's neck for nine minutes. They'll support three hicks who chase a black jogger down in their pick up trucks and murderer him with their shotgun. Republicans who try to disenfranchise black voters. Their culture is a shit culture that needs to be pushed to extinction. In my opinion.

You have control over yourself, don't you? Dumbass. And like I said, you've already made one false accusation.


But you have been wrong.

Objectively or just according to your own opinion?

You might be surprised to know that even the "slaver venerators" think slavery is wrong. I know I do.

You still respect and honor a piece of human shit you kept black men, women and children as property. If someone told you they love Nazis just not all the jew killing would that make you think any better or them?

You are no different than me or anyone else when it comes to conflicted morality. I've said before that your moral character is no better than mine. Not from what I've seen so far.

I never said it was you dipshit. In fact I said that both our opinions are equally subjective. I just think I have a better argument for Wahsington being one of America's Nazis than one of its heroes when you look objectively at him owning black people as property.

On a side note, my niece has two black children from her marriage to the black man and I love them dearly. To both of them, I am their favorite uncle. I also have much respect for their father. He is a true man of honor.

I've had many black friends over the years - most of them coworkers - and none of them ever said I was racist.

Well if you're imaginary friends don't think so.....

Anyway, I call you a race hustler because people like you have it rigged. All you have to do is throw the word out there, which you do at the drop of a hat. When you do, as I said, you never have to take it back and you never have to prove it (you won't even try when asked). You put the burden on the accused to prove his innocence, which is logically impossible to begin with, and is ignored if they try.

I gave you my reasons. I have as much hope of convincing you that you're racist as you do of convincing me my judgement of you was wrong or rash. The only difference is I'm not so much of a bitch that I'm demanding you prove it to me. I'm just trying to get you to acknowledge your judgement is subjective, I don't care how you feel about me. Also I'm trying to convince you, my target is everyone else. That's how we use the mainstream to shame, ridicule and cancel racists.

Bull - fucking - shit. Everybody thought Sandmann was harassing Nathan Phillips (the Native American) and getting in his face. All this was assumed because of one picture and a brief video. Days later a longer video came out that revealed that Sandmann harassed no one and in fact, Phillips approached him and started banging his drum in Sandmann's face.

You idiot, just because CNN was liable for defaming Sandmann doesn't mean that he isn't a racist, objectively. The fact is, you and I don't know if he's a racist objectively. All we have are subjective opinions. I'm of the opinion that all MAGA hat wearers are racist trash.

I know this story like the back of my hand and researched it and followed it because the behavior of Democrats and liberals at the time was atrocious. So no, it's not an assumption.

You’re so stupid that you don't understand that CNN losing their lawsuit isn't objective evidence that Sannman is not racist. It's just proof he didn't approach and harass a Native American man.

That most blacks drive, you idiot.

And what is this relevant towards?

Maybe a heart attack from the drugs and stress.

Except the M.E. ruled homicide by neck compression. This like you insisting Sannman could of been whispering hateful thing to the Native American under his breath.

NINE MINUTES!NINE MINUTES! NINE MINUTES!

It triggers you Chauvin lovers to hear that dont it?

Everybody makes much of the nine minutes but that still doesn't prove murder nor does it prove this is what killed him.

The M.E. did that.

No it wasn't. I don't believe for one second that Chauvin meant to kill Floyd.

Well you're a racist so who gives a shit?

It sounds to me like the prosecutors jumped the gun. They should have just waited for the full report.

No shit. That's why the family ordered another autopsy.

Anyway, I'm sticking with; it could be one of those times an innocent man was convicted.

Yeah we know. Racists gunna racist.

Something you need to understand where I'm coming from here. For me, it has less to do with Floyd being black and more to do with what I saw as a symptom of the anti-police movement that was going hot at the time.

And you don't think the DOJ report finding that the Minneapolis police department engaged in discrimination and excessive use of force against Black and Native Americans justifies a bit of that anti police outrage?

The optics of the whole thing was damning. But when I sit back and look at the bigger picture of Floyd's drug and health problems (he was a walking heart attack waiting to happen and was a candidate for a triple bypass), his elevated stress in the situation, the way the prosecution and the family attorneys conducted their business, something just seems off to me.

Yeah. Your racist funny bone is tingling.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That's your opinion which equally means shit to me. Learn what opinions are guy.

That's not my opinion, that is fact.

You: Opinions are subjective.

Me: Then your opinions on racism are subjective.

You: That's your opinion.

And around and around we go. Because you are the one who doesn't fully understand what subjective opinion means.

Still an opinion you fuckwit.

It was rash.

It's not your opinion on morality that's stupid. All of those are equally subjective. It's your inability to discern objective truth.

So what is the objective truth on racism?

See. I knew my word choice has gotten under your skin. The part about immorally venerating, that's your bitch feelings on display. As I said, feel free to disagree that venerating a slaver is immoral. I can't prove that it is immoral objectively because it's only immoral subjectively.

So now you're saying venerating slavers is NOT immoral?

It is objectively true that they venerate a slaver though because Washington was a slaver. It's the implication from that objective truth that has you all hot and bothered.

If you haven't realized by now that I don't give a shit if they do or not then you're an idiot.

Having said that, "venerate" is a subjective term you chose to use.

Venerate is not subjective.

In this context, yes, it is.

It means to honor which statues and monuments do. Now you're just being a big bitch. Take your medicine bitch. As I said from the beginning I'm using an objective truth to suggest you and your ilk are human pieces of shit, subjectively.

Bitch! Bitch! Bitch!

I did. Nothing I've read confirms anything you've claimed. Can you back it up? Because I don't think you can. I think you're just full of shit.

Semantics - Wikipedia

I'll answer that question when you answer whether you think my judgements are objectively rash because I don't believe you even fully understand the concept.

A quote from the website linked below:

"Semantic Rules govern the meaning of words and how to interpret them (Martinich, 1996). Semantics is the study of meaning in language. It considers what words mean, or are intended to mean, as opposed to their sound, spelling, grammatical function, and so on. Does a given statement refer to other statements already communicated? Is the statement true or false? Does it carry a certain intent? What does the sender or receiver need to know in order to understand its meaning? These are questions addressed by semantic rules."
Semantics Rules

It applies to any type of judgement about someone you dumb fuck. Including yours.

I never said objectively rash you dumb fuck.

We can't know if you're lying or not so your insistence that you're not racist doesn't mean shit.

Who the fuck is "we"? I know you're lying.

I've never said anything about acceptance and tolerance. Not one thing. You have and you keep trying to attribute it to me.

No I didn't you idiot.

The problem with racists is that they're racist pieces of shit.

Irrelevant. That's like saying a red car is red.

They'll support cops who kneel on a black man's neck for nine minutes.

I didn't support this.

They'll support three hicks who chase a black jogger down in their pick up trucks and murderer him with their shotgun.

He wasn't shot until he attacked them.

The father and son had a legitimate concern: Aubrey had no business snooping around on that property and apparently things had already come up missing.

Having said that, they did a poor job of handling it and as far as I'm concerned, they're probably where they need to be.

Republicans who try to disenfranchise black voters. Their culture is a shit culture that needs to be pushed to extinction. In my opinion.

Okay.

Objectively or just according to your own opinion?

Objectively.

You still respect and honor a piece of human shit you kept black men, women and children as property. If someone told you they love Nazis just not all the jew killing would that make you think any better or them?

"Piece of human shit" is subjective.

I never said it was you dipshit.

I never said you said it you dipshit. I'm saying it.

In fact I said that both our opinions are equally subjective. I just think I have a better argument for Wahsington being one of America's Nazis than one of its heroes when you look objectively at him owning black people as property.

Okay, so, what's the better argument you have that I'm racist without reverting to circular reasoning?

Well if you're imaginary friends don't think so.....

So your assumption is, I made them up?

I gave you my reasons.

And I asked you to explain your reasons, which you conveniently left out of your post.

So let's try again.

"That's just as disgusting to me as admiring Hitler and the accomplishments of his Nazi State would be to a Jew. Your opinion on George Floyd's murder."

Explain. How does this one make me racist?

"Your inference that as a black voter I should be concerned with the opinions of ignorant white liberals rather than Republicans actively trying to minimize our vote."

How does this one make me racist?

"You thinking you're niece's black husband makes your point stronger. It's a bunch of things."

So merely citing another black person who agrees with me that the racism crusade is out of hand makes me racist? Explain that one.

I have as much hope of convincing you that you're racist as you do of convincing me my judgement of you was wrong or rash. The only difference is I'm not so much of a bitch that I'm demanding you prove it to me.

The difference is one is a moral judgment and the other is not.

You idiot, just because CNN was liable for defaming Sandmann doesn't mean that he isn't a racist, objectively.

Irrelevant. Whether Sandmann is racist or not is off the table once it was found he was not the aggressor in that particular situation.

Half the country made an assumption because of the hat, just like you're doing now. They were wrong. If they got that much wrong, what else did they get wrong?

The fact is, you and I don't know if he's a racist objectively.

You don't know if anyone is racist, objectively. The hat doesn't change that.

All we have are subjective opinions. I'm of the opinion that all MAGA hat wearers are racist trash.

So you're triggered by a silly red hat?

Here's the story behind Sandmann's hat. He didn't even own one before he went to D.C. that day and the only reason he and other classmates bought them was for souvenirs from their trip.

I don't even know if he actually supported Trump and neither do you.

You’re so stupid that you don't understand that CNN losing their lawsuit isn't objective evidence that Sannman is not racist. It's just proof he didn't approach and harass a Native American man.

Irrelevant. You and everybody else wouldn't even know about Sandmann if Phillips had not decided to approach him and if CNN had not decided to conflate and propagate a lie. It's only because of the immoral and unethical actions by liberals that Sandmann even came up on anyone's radar in the first place.

In short, he didn't do the racist thing that everyone thought a MAGA hat-wearing racist would do.

And what is this relevant towards?

That most blacks have IDs you idiot.

Except the M.E. ruled homicide by neck compression.

So, again, why the independent autopsy?

It triggers you Chauvin lovers to hear that dont it?

Actually, no. That was sarcasm because it's what the left and Democrats were screaming yet it actually doesn't prove this is what killed Floyd.

The left glommed onto the optics of the situation to stir up emotions but it didn't actually prove anything. They did this even before the trial started.

The M.E. did that.

Not really. The only physical signs of any kind of trauma were the abrasions on his face and body from lying in the street. The autopsy doesn't actually say what was physically or physiologically evident to suggest death by neck compression.

What he DID find though was three large blockages in his arteries and that's in the report.

Well you're a racist so who gives a shit?

Since your opinion is subjective, why should anyone give a shit about that?

No shit. That's why the family ordered another autopsy.

Rather than just wait for the full report?

Yeah we know. Racists gunna racist.

Yeah. Dontcha just hate that?

And you don't think the DOJ report finding that the Minneapolis police department engaged in discrimination and excessive use of force against Black and Native Americans justifies a bit of that anti police outrage?

The anti-police movement involved the entire country and many demonized law enforcement as a whole. That's why idiots like Cortez were calling for defunding the police.

Yeah. Your racist funny bone is tingling.

Just trying to clarify some things so you would have a better understanding where I'm coming from. But, race hustlers gotta race hustle.

 

[Curried Goats]

So what is the objective truth on racism?

As I've tried to explain to you, I think actions can be objectively racist. The actions of the Founders for instance were objectively racist. They thought black people were inferior, said as much and treated them as such. But I think that misses the point. I don't think something has to be objectively true for people to form strong, subjective opinions about you. I think the implications do that just fine. As I keep saying, mine is both an objective and a subjective argument.

Let's look at it like this. Are statues to Hitler objectively anti-semtic? Does supporting statues to Hitler make you objectively antisemtic yourself? Do the answers to those questions even matter? I don't think so. I think if you're out here supporting statues to Hitler people are going to think you're antisemtic. Objectively or subjectively who gives a shit? That's good enough for my purposes.

So now you're saying venerating slavers is NOT immoral?

Not objectively. I'm certainly implying it subjectively. I also think if it wasn't a convincing argument, emotionally speaking, you wouldn't be so determined to fight the objective truth in the statement that venerating Washington = venerating a slaver.

If you haven't realized by now that I don't give a shit if they do or not then you're an idiot.

Having said that, "venerate" is a subjective term you chose to use.

It's an inflammatory word I chose to use. It's still objectively true however that the word venerate means to revere and respect and its objectively true that statues are made in reverence of individuals. Why are you still being a bitch about this?

A quote from the website linked below:

"Semantic Rules govern the meaning of words and how to interpret them (Martinich, 1996). Semantics is the study of meaning in language. It considers what words mean, or are intended to mean, as opposed to their sound, spelling, grammatical function, and so on. Does a given statement refer to other statements already communicated? Is the statement true or false? Does it carry a certain intent? What does the sender or receiver need to know in order to understand its meaning? These are questions addressed by semantic rules."
Semantics Rules

Great. Now where there does it says you're the one with the correct assessment of what's true or false? I don't see that written there anywhere. So let's try this again since you seem particularly slow.

Was Washington a slaver? True or false?

Do people who venerate Washington venerate a slaver? True or false?

Basically I'm asking if the word Washington can be substituted with a slaver and to answer that one only needs to refer back to the first question. Does Washington = A slaver? The answer to that is objectively yes.

That's the check on on true or false right there.

He wasn't shot until he attacked them.

The father and son had a legitimate concern: Aubrey had no business snooping around on that property and apparently things had already come up missing.

Having said that, they did a poor job of handling it and as far as I'm concerned, they're probably where they need to be.

It isn't hard to scratch the suffice and find a racist is it? Now how did I now you'd be the kind of guy to think Arbery attacked them first. As if chasing someone down in your pick up and pointing your gun at them isn't assault. Or that brandishing your gun and suggesting someone follow your orders isn't assault. As a gun owner I know it is. Now does thinking Arbery had no right to defend himself from their assault make you a racist? I probably can't prove it objectively but I'm certain a majority would look at your assessment and find it deeply deplorable and in politics and society what people think about you is probably more important than whether your racism can be objectively proven. As you well know cancel culture isn't about objectivity, it's about emotion.

"Piece of human shit" is subjective.

I know. Its also provocative and forces those who disagree to have to argue that owning men women and children as property doesn't make one a human piece of shit, even if only subjectively. Who cares about objectively? It's a question about how you feel about slavers. Hiding behind objectivity isn't going to stop someone from using that to form a subjective opinion about you. Like judge Engoron warned Trump the other day in court, your refusal to answer could force me to accept all the negative inferences that come along with that.

Okay, so, what's the better argument you have that I'm racist without reverting to circular reasoning?

It's not reasoning at all you clown. It's emotional rhetoric. I've said so from the start. There is an objective argument and a subjective argument. This is the subjective argument. In this case the better argument to you seems to be the one that is objective. Not so. Politically and strategically in this case the better argument is to play up how you think whites, in their privilege, have a right to chase down any ole black man they suspect of wrongdoing and hold him at gunpoint and if he resists he's attacking them first. Good luck convincing a majority that isn't the belief of a deplorable mutant racist. Strategically, if you believe this I think the better course of action is to keep your mouth shut and that opinion to yourself. Shame and ridicule my guy. Shame and ridicule.

Explain. How does this one make me racist?

How does this one make me racist?

So merely citing another black person who agrees with me that the racism crusade is out of hand makes me racist? Explain that one.

If you have to ask that many times guy you should be asking yourself why.

The difference is one is a moral judgment and the other is not.

Something doesn't have to be a moral judgment to be a subjective one. Whether you're ugly or attractive isn't a moral opinion but it's still a subjective one. Likewise for your opinion that my judgements are rash.

Irrelevant. Whether Sandmann is racist or not is off the table once it was found he was not the aggressor in that particular situation.

That's your opinion you dumb Bingo. Other people could of thought he was a racist for other reasons like his decision to put on a MAGA hat.

Half the country made an assumption because of the hat, just like you're doing now. They were wrong. If they got that much wrong, what else did they get wrong?

Who says I'm wrong about MAGA hat wearers?

You don't know if anyone is racist, objectively. The hat doesn't change that.

Objectivity isn't my standard and it isn't yours either. You haven't waited for objective proof to make judgements about me.

So you're triggered by a silly red hat?

I'm informed by it as I would be by a white hood or a Nazi flag. Are you triggered by a nazi flag or informed by it? The perspective you project in your arguments reveals as much about yourself as you intend for them to reveal about me.

Here's the story behind Sandmann's hat. He didn't even own one before he went to D.C. that day and the only reason he and other classmates bought them was for souvenirs from their trip.

I don't even know if he actually supported Trump and neither do you.

You keep trying make your case to me like I give a shit. I don't. I don't care why he chose to dawn the paraphernalia of a racist. That action was itself enough for me.

Irrelevant. You and everybody else wouldn't even know about Sandmann if Phillips had not decided to approach him and if CNN had not decided to conflate and propagate a lie. It's only because of the immoral and unethical actions by liberals that Sandmann even came up on anyone's radar in the first place.

In short, he didn't do the racist thing that everyone thought a MAGA hat-wearing racist would do.

Just because CNN was over zealous in their reporting of the situation doesn't mean people are objectively wrong in their feelings on the matter. There's reporting of racist and harassing remarks from the boys. Absent CNN failing to use the word allegedly instead of making a claim in their reporting about someone they couldn't prove and effectively defaming him, it's still a he said she said situation. Just because they couldn't convict OJ doesn't mean objectively that he didn't kill his wife and in this case it wasn't even a court verdict. I went back to refresh my memory and he settled.

That most blacks have IDs you idiot.

And this is relevant to want? You just felt like randomly telling me most blacks have ID? Do you have racist tourrettes?

So, again, why the independent autopsy?

Because the prosecutor released a preliminary report that made it seem like Chauvin didn't muder Floyd by keeping his knee on his neck for nine minutes as we all watched him do on video. Why do you think they asked for an independent autopsy?

Actually, no. That was sarcasm because it's what the left and Democrats were screaming yet it actually doesn't prove this is what killed Floyd.

It's the medical examiners report that does that.

The left glommed onto the optics of the situation to stir up emotions but it didn't actually prove anything. They did this even before the trial started.

You don't have to artificially stir up emotions when people watch a police officer murder a man on video for nine minutes to the cries of a crowd who are foretelling that man's death in real time.

Not really. The only physical signs of any kind of trauma were the abrasions on his face and body from lying in the street. The autopsy doesn't actually say what was physically or physiologically evident to suggest death by neck compression.

There weren't any external signs of trauma. There was evidence of subdural neck compression as detailed in the autopsy report.

What he DID find though was three large blockages in his arteries and that's in the report.

And yet the M.E. noted they weren't the cause of death. You kneeling on a man's neck for nine minutes until he's dead doesn't only count as murder if the man is in perfect health. What kind of stupid standard is that? If he's obese then it's his fault if you kneeling on his neck kills him? Is that the argument you're trying to make?

Since your opinion is subjective, why should anyone give a shit about that?

Don't. I don't care. I care about the opinion of the majority. That's where you'll find political and social power.

The anti-police movement involved the entire country and many demonized law enforcement as a whole. That's why idiots like Cortez were calling for defunding the police.

It wasn't just the Minneapolis police department that was found to be systemically racist in their administration of the law by the DOJ.

Just trying to clarify some things so you would have a better understanding where I'm coming from. But, race hustlers gotta race hustle.

I don't care where you come from trailer park trash.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

As I've tried to explain to you, I think actions can be objectively racist. The actions of the Founders for instance were objectively racist. They thought black people were inferior, said as much and treated them as such. But I think that misses the point. I don't think something has to be objectively true for people to form strong, subjective opinions about you. I think the implications do that just fine. As I keep saying, mine is both an objective and a subjective argument.

Let's look at it like this. Are statues to Hitler objectively anti-semtic? Does supporting statues to Hitler make you objectively antisemtic yourself? Do the answers to those questions even matter? I don't think so. I think if you're out here supporting statues to Hitler people are going to think you're antisemtic. Objectively or subjectively who gives a shit? That's good enough for my purposes.

And yet, after all that, antisemitism seems to be the current trend.

Anyway, I understand all this. Like I said, it's not that complicated. My point is, for people who honor our historical figures, their owning slaves just doesn't figure into the matter that much. The reason is, slavery has been abolished and was abolished a hundred fifty five years ago and it's never coming back. Does it mean some want slavery back? Of course not. Does it mean they are racist in any way? Not necessarily. Some are, some are not.

But this is the crux of the matter for you. To you, they absolutely, positively must be racist if they admire Washington, a slave owner. That's just a little too simple.

Not objectively. I'm certainly implying it subjectively. I also think if it wasn't a convincing argument, emotionally speaking, you wouldn't be so determined to fight the objective truth in the statement that venerating Washington = venerating a slaver.

The word "venerate" comes from the Latin word for worship. It of course is used to mean respect and deference in the context of persons today but I just don't find it apt in this situation. I would say "admire" before I'd say "venerate".

This is why I keep telling you the word is yours, not mine or anyone else's and is why I don't buy into your venerate Washington = venerate slavers argument.

It's an inflammatory word I chose to use.

Exactly.

It's still objectively true however that the word venerate means to revere and respect and its objectively true that statues are made in reverence of individuals. Why are you still being a bitch about this?

I'm not the one using inflammatory language.

Great. Now where there does it says you're the one with the correct assessment of what's true or false?

Irrelevant. You assumed I was pulling my White Privilege card when I brought up the rules of semantics and so I proved to you that they exist.

I don't see that written there anywhere. So let's try this again since you seem particularly slow.

Let's not.

It isn't hard to scratch the suffice and find a racist is it?

How do you scratch a "suffice"? Did you mean "surface"?

Now how did I now you'd be the kind of guy to think Arbery attacked them first.

He DID attack them first. That doesn't take away from the fact that the McMichaels acted stupidly. They should have called the cops and let them handle it. Now a man is dead and they are in prison because they were playing vigilante.

As if chasing someone down in your pick up and pointing your gun at them isn't assault.

I don't believe they ever pointed their guns at Arbery before he ran at the son to try to take his shotgun.

Or that brandishing your gun and suggesting someone follow your orders isn't assault.

It's not. Was it stupid? Yes. But not assault.

As a gun owner I know it is.

I own guns too and I don't see merely brandishing a firearm as assault.

Now does thinking Arbery had no right to defend himself from their assault make you a racist?

Never said he had no right to defend himself.

I probably can't prove it objectively but I'm certain a majority would look at your assessment and find it deeply deplorable

How so? It's a fact that Arbery snooped around someone else's property. I said the Dad and his son were legitimately concerned because there had been a rash of thefts in the area. I didn't say they had a right to chase the guy down.

I know. Its also provocative and forces those who disagree to have to argue that owning men women and children as property doesn't make one a human piece of shit, even if only subjectively.

You think you're forcing people to say these things? Damn, what an arrogant prick.

It's not reasoning at all you clown.

No kidding.

It's emotional rhetoric.

So there's no reasoning behind calling me racist, it's just emotional rhetoric?

I've said so from the start. There is an objective argument and a subjective argument. This is the subjective argument. In this case the better argument to you seems to be the one that is objective. Not so.

What are you talking about? The question was: What's the better argument you have that I'm racist without reverting to circular reasoning?

Politically and strategically in this case the better argument is to play up how you think whites, in their privilege, have a right to chase down any ole black man they suspect of wrongdoing and hold him at gunpoint and if he resists he's attacking them first.

Did I say anything like this?

Good luck convincing a majority that isn't the belief of a deplorable mutant racist. Strategically, if you believe this I think the better course of action is to keep your mouth shut and that opinion to yourself. Shame and ridicule my guy. Shame and ridicule.

Shame and ridicule for what? Explain to me what I said that was deplorable.

If you have to ask that many times guy you should be asking yourself why.

I'm asking you, dumbass, because I DON'T understand why.

So I take it you are incapable of explaining or sussing out your own assertions?

That's your opinion you dumb Bingo. Other people could of thought he was a racist for other reasons like his decision to put on a MAGA hat.

OF COURSE IT WAS THE HAT you fucking idiot. That's the goddamn point. The hat was why they were so quick to make an assumption about the circumstances, an assumption that turned out to be wrong.

Who says I'm wrong about MAGA hat wearers?

Who says you're right?

Objectivity isn't my standard and it isn't yours either. You haven't waited for objective proof to make judgements about me.

There are two objective truths. 1.) I'm not racist. 2.) Your conflicted morality (hypocrisy), i.e., your views on admiring historical figures vis-a-vis your blithe disregard about bearing false witness.

I'm informed by it as I would be by a white hood or a Nazi flag.

No you're not. You can't claim that alleging racism is subjective and turn around and say you're informed by a hat. To say you're informed by the hat is to say they are objectively racist. They are not.

You're not informed of anything except they're wearing a red hat.

You keep trying make your case to me like I give a shit. I don't. I don't care why he chose to dawn the paraphernalia of a racist. That action was itself enough for me.

The case you keep making for me is that you're an intellectual pinhead who doesn't even know what the correct words are half the time.

The correct word is "don", not "dawn". This is what I was talking about when I said internet warriors like yourself use words and spelling that they think they hear because they almost never read anything other than the same type of drivel from other internet warriors.

Just because CNN was over zealous in their reporting of the situation doesn't mean people are objectively wrong in their feelings on the matter.

They were objectively wrong. Haven't you been paying attention? They thought he harassed an elderly Native American but he did not. Understand?

There's reporting of racist and harassing remarks from the boys.

I've heard about that but I've seen and listened to the videos and the boys said nothing like what was being rumored.

Absent CNN failing to use the word allegedly instead of making a claim in their reporting about someone they couldn't prove and effectively defaming him, it's still a he said she said situation.

No, it was not. He DID NOT DO what they accused him of doing. This is objective fact.

And this is relevant to want? You just felt like randomly telling me most blacks have ID? Do you have racist tourrettes?

Jesus Christ, you can't even keep up with your own bullshit. This goes all the way back to when I first brought up white liberals saying blacks can't get IDs.

Because the prosecutor released a preliminary report that made it seem like Chauvin didn't muder Floyd by keeping his knee on his neck for nine minutes as we all watched him do on video. Why do you think they asked for an independent autopsy?

Wrong. Like I said, I have a PDF copy of the state ME's autopsy report and he reported:

Cardiopulmonary Arrest Complicating Law Enforcement Subdual, Restraint, And neck Compression.

It's the medical examiners report that does that.

No it doesn't. He didn't actually find any evidence of suffocation from the neck compression.

You don't have to artificially stir up emotions when people watch a police officer murder a man on video for nine minutes to the cries of a crowd who are foretelling that man's death in real time.

But you do it anyway, don't you? It is a useful tool after all.

There weren't any external signs of trauma. There was evidence of subdural neck compression as detailed in the autopsy report.

Of course there will be signs of neck compression. The question is: Is that what killed him?

And yet the M.E. noted they weren't the cause of death. You kneeling on a man's neck for nine minutes until he's dead doesn't only count as murder if the man is in perfect health.

He wasn't in perfect health you idiot. He was a walking heart attack waiting to happen. That is exactly one of the reasons I have my doubts.

What kind of stupid standard is that? If he's obese then it's his fault if you kneeling on his neck kills him? Is that the argument you're trying to make?

Yuh, that's what I'm saying.

You don't have to be obese to have clogged arteries.

Don't. I don't care. I care about the opinion of the majority. That's where you'll find political and social power.

Irrelevant. I didn't say "I", I said "anyone".

It wasn't just the Minneapolis police department that was found to be systemically racist in their administration of the law by the DOJ.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many corrupt departments there were/are because we both know not all of them are. But people vilified law enforcement as a whole.

I don't care where you come from trailer park trash.

Like I said, race hustlers gotta race hustle.

 

[Curried Goats]

And yet, after all that, antisemitism seems to be the current trend.

Anyway, I understand all this. Like I said, it's not that complicated. My point is, for people who honor our historical figures, their owning slaves just doesn't figure into the matter that much. The reason is, slavery has been abolished and was abolished a hundred fifty five years ago and it's never coming back. Does it mean some want slavery back? Of course not. Does it mean they are racist in any way? Not necessarily. Some are, some are not.

I know your point is that you don't really consider much the brutality and inhumanity involved in slavery as you honor slavers. That fact is what I use to promote the political message that yours is a deplorable mutant culture that doesn't value black lives. That propaganda is further served when you come out and victim blame murdered black men like Floyd and Arbery for their own murders.

You've taken so many side streets here that I need to rein you back in. I'm not trying to change your opinion. Nor am I interested in your cries for a standard of objectivism that you yourself do not practice. I'm stating what my goal is(the extinction of your culture) and explaining the strategy we're using to obtain it (shame and ridicule).

Now just because supporting a statue to Hitler and saying you don't really think about the Jews when you honor him isn't objectively racist that doesn't make it good politics and it doesn't mean a whole lot of people aren't going to subjectively think you're racist.

You want to make this about whether my claims of racism are objectively racist but I don't care if honoring Hitler or slavers is objectively racist. That was never my claim.

But this is the crux of the matter for you. To you, they absolutely, positively must be racist if they admire Washington, a slave owner. That's just a little too simple.

Messaging is better when it's simple. It's the slaver lovers that need a convulted explanation for why their love of slavers doesn't make them sus.

The word "venerate" comes from the Latin word for worship. It of course is used to mean respect and deference in the context of persons today but I just don't find it apt in this situation. I would say "admire" before I'd say "venerate".

See, convulted.

This is why I keep telling you the word is yours, not mine or anyone else's and is why I don't buy into your venerate Washington = venerate slavers argument.

What's not to buy moron? I'm not asking if you love the word venerate I'm asking a simple semantic true or false question. Does Washington = A Slaver? If Washington = A Slaver than I can substitute A Slaver anytime I see Washington and the sentence remains effectively unchanged, as per the rules.

I'm not the one using inflammatory language.

No. You're just trying to use a dictionary to explain to people why you're technically not a racist, objectively speaking. Subjectively speaking is another matter entirely.

He DID attack them first.

He did not you despicable racist. He tried to flee from armed men who chased him down in their cars and trucks and when that failed he tried to defend himself.

That doesn't take away from the fact that the McMichaels acted stupidly. They should have called the cops and let them handle it. Now a man is dead and they are in prison because they were playing vigilante.

Instead they violently chased, intimidated and murdered a man out on his jog.

I don't believe they ever pointed their guns at Arbery before he ran at the son to try to take his shotgun.

Does that matter? If a man lifts his waistband to reveal a gun and starts barking orders at you the threat in that is implicit in every jurisdiction in America. In this case they weren't even in the waistband, they were in their hands. They committed assault the moment they armed themselves and gave Arbery the order to stop and comply with their demands which they admitted to doing to their police friends who did the initial investigation. Such is the hubris of white privilege.

It's not. Was it stupid? Yes. But not assault.

So it was the McMichaels who ultimately defended themselves from Arbery?

I own guns too and I don't see merely brandishing a firearm as assault.

Brandishing firearms and giving orders after chasing down someone trying to flee from you isn't assault? Let's say that instead of doing all this to a black man they did it to a white woman. Still not assault?

Never said he had no right to defend himself.

Yet you claimed he attacked the McMichaels first so at what point does he actually have a right to defend himself? At this point your belief he has the right to defend himself seems theoretical. If he can't defend himself from armed men who've chased him all over a neighborhood demanding he stop and comply with them, when can he?

How so? It's a fact that Arbery snooped around someone else's property. I said the Dad and his son were legitimately concerned because there had been a rash of thefts in the area. I didn't say they had a right to chase the guy down.

Then you've said conflicting, convulted things. If they didn't have the right to arm themselves and chase Arbery down then doesn't that mean what they did amounts to assault and Arbery's actions self defense?

You think you're forcing people to say these things? Damn, what an arrogant prick.

Your choices are to remain silent and not defend slaver culture and we keep chipping away at it until its extinct. Or you defend slaver culture and keep it alive within you at the risk of great personal cost to you in the form of shame, ridicule and cancel culture. 20 years from now will anyone with a mainstream platform be defending Confederate culture? It doesn't seem likely. This has already been effective strategy, it only requires expansion.

OF COURSE IT WAS THE HAT you fucking idiot. That's the goddamn point.

Or maybe people just didn't like his face. Crying that people have an opinion that you don't agree with ain't going to get you anywhere.

There are two objective truths. 1.) I'm not racist.

Is that an objective truth? We don't know that. All we have is your claim.

2.) Your conflicted morality (hypocrisy), i.e., your views on admiring historical figures vis-a-vis your blithe disregard about bearing false witness.

I'm not at all conflicted about my morality. It's subjective you dope. I care what I care about and don't care about what I don't care about.

No you're not. You can't claim that alleging racism is subjective and turn around and say you're informed by a hat. To say you're informed by the hat is to say they are objectively racist. They are not.

No it's not. If I wanted to say they were objectively racist I would of used those words. Objectively, I never said those words. You're choosing, subjectively, to believe I meant something that objectively, I didn't type.

You're not informed of anything except they're wearing a red hat.

And who that hat represents and that's exactly what I meant.

They were objectively wrong. Haven't you been paying attention? They thought he harassed an elderly Native American but he did not. Understand?

Thats what they were objectively wrong about. They werent objectively wrong that he was a racist. Not harassing an elderly Native American isn't objective proof that you're not a racist.

I've heard about that but I've seen and listened to the videos and the boys said nothing like what was being rumored.

Also not seeing video of something isn't objective proof it didn't occur.

No, it was not. He DID NOT DO what they accused him of doing. This is objective fact.

It's not. It's only a fact that he settled his lawsuits with various news outlets. As I pointed out with OJ, not proving something legally isn't objective evidence that you didn't do it, only that it wasn't proven true. Not having been proven true does not = proving something false. This goes back to semantic proofs of true and false. In this case your check fails.

Jesus Christ, you can't even keep up with your own bullshit. This goes all the way back to when I first brought up white liberals saying blacks can't get IDs.

And I countered that a more pressing concern for black voters are white conservative efforts to minimize black voting power.

Wrong. Like I said, I have a PDF copy of the state ME's autopsy report and he reported:

Cardiopulmonary Arrest Complicating Law Enforcement Subdual, Restraint, And neck Compression.

 Which isn't the same thing as the preliminary report the prosecutors office released which is what motivated the family to get a second opinion.

No it doesn't. He didn't actually find any evidence of suffocation from the neck compression.

Cardiac Arrest due to law enforcement applying subdural neck compression is doctor speak for depriving the body of oxygen until his heart stopped beating. The thing that caused his heart to stop beating (death) was the neck compression.

But you do it anyway, don't you? It is a useful tool after all.

When needed but as I said, no one needs to gin up anger after watching enforcement murder a man on video for nine minutes.

Of course there will be signs of neck compression. The question is: Is that what killed him?

The M.E. says yes but racists gunna racist.

He wasn't in perfect health you idiot. He was a walking heart attack waiting to happen. That is exactly one of the reasons I have my doubts.

So you think we watched him conveniently die of natural causes as he was having his neck knelt on by the police?

You don't have to be obese to have clogged arteries.

You don't have to be in prefect to health to be murdered by the police.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many corrupt departments there were/are because we both know not all of them are. But people vilified law enforcement as a whole.

Do we require a standard of every single officer being bad before we can vilify law enforcement? Who made you the arbiter of such things?

Like I said, race hustlers gotta race hustle.

Call people who were angered after watching police murder a man for nine minutes, race hustlers. I'm sure that'll work out for you politically.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I know your point is that you don't really consider much the brutality and inhumanity involved in slavery as you honor slavers.

Well, that's your way of putting it.

That fact is what I use to promote the political message that yours is a deplorable mutant culture that doesn't value black lives.

What makes you think I don't value black lives?

That propaganda is further served when you come out and victim blame murdered black men like Floyd and Arbery for their own murders.

How did I do that?

You've taken so many side streets here that I need to rein you back in.

You're the master at taking side streets. You say I'm blaming the victim by simply stating facts and in spite of the fact that I criticized the McMichaels for their actions.

Get the fuck outta here.

I'm not trying to change your opinion. Nor am I interested in your cries for a standard of objectivism that you yourself do not practice. I'm stating what my goal is(the extinction of your culture) and explaining the strategy we're using to obtain it (shame and ridicule).

Now just because supporting a statue to Hitler and saying you don't really think about the Jews when you honor him isn't objectively racist that doesn't make it good politics and it doesn't mean a whole lot of people aren't going to subjectively think you're racist.

You want to make this about whether my claims of racism are objectively racist but I don't care if honoring Hitler or slavers is objectively racist. That was never my claim.

You sure act like it.

On the one hand you claim morality is subjective and on the other hand you talk about shame and ridicule. So even if you don't say your morality or your views on racists and racism are objectively true, you nevertheless think they are. If you didn't then you would not objectively consider me or my views as worthy of shame.

Messaging is better when it's simple.

It's not better when it's incorrect.

It's the slaver lovers that need a convulted explanation for why their love of slavers doesn't make them sus.

What's "sus"?

See, convulted.

What's "convulted"?

What's not buy moron? I'm not asking if you love the word venerate I'm asking a simple semantic true or false question. Does Washington = A Slaver? If Washington = A Slaver than I can substitute A Slaver anytime I see Washington and the sentence remains effectively unchanged, as per the rules.

You still have more to learn about semantics. The distinction is what your words intend to convey; venerating a historical figure for their owning slaves. That is not true.

No. You're just trying to use a dictionary to explain to people why you're technically not a racist, objectively speaking. Subjectively speaking is another matter entirely.

Irrelevant. You say I'm crying like a bitch but you can't even make a case without hyperbole and inflammatory language. You are a hapless slave to your emotions.

He did not you despicable racist.

Yes, he did.

He tried to flee from armed men who chased him down in their cars and trucks and when that failed he tried to defend himself.

By attacking first.

Instead they violently chased, intimidated and murdered a man out on his jog.

Chasing is not violence.

Does that matter?

Yes. Because it's not true.

If a man lifts his waistband to reveal a gun and starts barking orders at you the threat in that is implicit in every jurisdiction in America.

I don't think Arbery knew they were armed until the son got out of the truck with his shotgun.

In this case they weren't even in the waistband, they were in their hands. They committed assault the moment they armed themselves and gave Arbery the order to stop and comply with their demands which they admitted to doing to their police friends who did the initial investigation.

Sorry, that's not assault.

Such is the hubris of white privilege.

You're just as capable of lying and conflation as I am. You have that privilege too.

So it was the McMichaels who ultimately defended themselves from Arbery?

Irrelevant. The question is whether or not merely brandishing a firearm is assault. I say it is not.

Brandishing firearms and giving orders after chasing down someone trying to flee from you isn't assault?

No.

Let's say that instead of doing all this to a black man they did it to a white woman. Still not assault?

No.

Yet you claimed he attacked the McMichaels first so at what point does he actually have a right to defend himself?

When they attack. Which they hadn't yet done at the point Arbery ran at them.

At this point your belief he has the right to defend himself seems theoretical. If he can't defend himself from armed men who've chased him all over a neighborhood demanding he stop and comply with them, when can he?

Why are you interrogating me on this point when I've already clearly stated that the McMichaels got what they deserved?

Then you've said conflicting, convulted things. If they didn't have the right to arm themselves and chase Arbery down then doesn't that mean what they did amounts to assault and Arbery's actions self defense?

Irrelevant. I didn't say they had the right to chase him down, I said brandishing a weapon is not assault.

Or maybe people just didn't like his face. Crying that people have an opinion that you don't agree with ain't going to get you anywhere.

What did his face have to do with the false accusations leveled at him?

Dumbass.

Is that an objective truth? We don't know that. All we have is your claim.

Yes, it's an objective truth. At the very least, I haven't actually said anything racist and you refuse to give evidence when asked.

This dodge and evasion routine when asked for citation is not a good look for you, intellectually speaking. In a formal debate you would have been laughed off the stage by now.

I'm not at all conflicted about my morality. It's subjective you dope. I care what I care about and don't care about what I don't care about.

Irrelevant. The subjectivity of your morals is a moot point when some of those morals conflict with each other. And like I said, you have no problem with false accusations of racism.

No it's not. If I wanted to say they were objectively racist I would of used those words. Objectively, I never said those words. You're choosing, subjectively, to believe I meant something that objectively, I didn't type.

Semantics, dumbass. You used the word "inform". Meaning, the hat conveyed the information that he is racist. The hat cannot inform you of a subjective opinion.

And who that hat represents and that's exactly what I meant.

Irrelevant.

Thats what they were objectively wrong about. They werent objectively wrong that he was a racist.

That's irrelevant to the incident in D.C..

Not harassing an elderly Native American isn't objective proof that you're not a racist.

The hat is not objective proof that you are.

I'm focusing on the incident itself and nothing else. You, however, have seized on the hat (and even the kid's face for fuck's sake) and inferred all manner of things that are subjective and irrelevant to the incident.

I didn't bring this up to discuss whether or not Sandmann is racist, I brought it up to illustrate how fucking stupid you people are and how easily the media leads you around by the nose.

Also not seeing video of something isn't objective proof it didn't occur.

I saw the video you idiot. That's what I just said.

And I countered that a more pressing concern for black voters are white conservative efforts to minimize black voting power.

Irrelevant. You already lost track of it and didn't even know what the fuck I was talking about.

 Which isn't the same thing as the preliminary report the prosecutors office released which is what motivated the family to get a second opinion.

The "preliminary" autopsy ruled death by homicide due to chest compression.

Cardiac Arrest due to law enforcement applying subdural neck compression is doctor speak for depriving the body of oxygen until his heart stopped beating. The thing that caused his heart to stop beating (death) was the neck compression.

I don't buy that. Or rather, I'm not ruling out heart attack given the condition of his arteries.

When needed but as I said, no one needs to gin up anger after watching enforcement murder a man on video for nine minutes.

The crowd was already "ginned up" before they had Floyd on the ground. They were gathering around and harassing and catcalling the cops the whole time.

This was due to the anti-police movement going on at the time.

The M.E. says yes but racists gunna racist.

I have my doubts.

So you think we watched him conveniently die of natural causes as he was having his neck knelt on by the police?

In my opinion, yes. Not "conveniently" though.

You don't have to be in prefect to health to be murdered by the police.

Irrelevant.

Do we require a standard of every single officer being bad before we can vilify law enforcement?

Yes.

Who made you the arbiter of such things?

Do you need an arbiter to know you should judge the individual by his actions and not the entire group?

Call people who were angered after watching police murder a man for nine minutes, race hustlers. I'm sure that'll work out for you politically.

What does politics have to do with anything?

 

[Curried Goats]

Well, that's your way of putting it.

That's your way of putting it. You said that the people who honor slavers aren't thinking about the slaves. Well that much is fucking obvious. What doesn't seem obvious to you is how racist that is. Their black victims dont matter? That seems objectively racist to me.

What makes you think I don't value black lives?

The respect and honor you have for men and a society who kept them as property.

You're the master at taking side streets. You say I'm blaming the victim by simply stating facts and in spite of the fact that I criticized the McMichaels for their actions.

My issue isn't you criticizing the McMichaels, it's with you victim blaming the innocent black jogger.

On the one hand you claim morality is subjective and on the other hand you talk about shame and ridicule. So even if you don't say your morality or your views on racists and racism are objectively true, you nevertheless think they are. If you didn't then you would not objectively consider me or my views as worthy of shame.

This argument assumes that people require objective evidence before having subjective opinions. Is that the case? Do you need to know objectively, that OJ murdered his wife before you subjectively think he's a killer? If I see you waving a nazi flag it doesn't matter that waving a nazi flag isn't objective proof that you're a nazi, I'm going to think you're a nazi.

You still have more to learn about semantics. The distinction is what your words intend to convey; venerating a historical figure for their owning slaves. That is not true.

That is nothing more than your interpretation of what my words are intended to convey. Objectively, I never said what you claim I intended to say. It's your semantic argument that's the failure. I maintain that my words "Venerators of Washington venerate a slaver" are meant to convey exactly that. That the person they venerate, Washington, was a slaver. That's it. That simple unfortunate (to slaver venerators) fact is all that sentence is meant to convey. Its subjective ideals, like judeo-christian values, that suggest enslaving people is morally wrong.

Irrelevant. You say I'm crying like a bitch but you can't even make a case without hyperbole and inflammatory language. You are a hapless slave to your emotions.

I've made an objective case that venerators of Washington = venerators of a slaver. Just because this language inflames your emotions doesn't mean it isn't objective.

Yes, he did.


By attacking first.


Chasing is not violence.

Chasing someone while you're holding a gun in your hand is implicitly violent.

Yes. Because it's not true.


I don't think Arbery knew they were armed until the son got out of the truck with his shotgun.

The father was riding in the back of the pick up with a gun in his hand. What you imagine doesn't dispute the facts which are that armed men illegally chased down and tried to detain a black man and ended up murdering him when he resisted their violent and illegal actions.

Sorry, that's not assault.

What are you apologizing for your cuck? Are you embarrassed by your own argument? I'm not sorry that that is your perspective. Please, share it with more people.

You're just as capable of lying and conflation as I am. You have that privilege too.


Irrelevant. The question is whether or not merely brandishing a firearm is assault. I say it is not.


No.


No.


When they attack. Which they hadn't yet done at the point Arbery ran at them.

Why are you interrogating me on this point when I've already clearly stated that the McMichaels got what they deserved?

I'm questioning you because nothing you're saying is making any fucking sense. Were the McMichaels doing anything illegal as the chased down and tried to detain Arbery with cars and guns? Yes or No? If No, then how are they legally at fault for Arbery attacking them first as you also claim?

Irrelevant. I didn't say they had the right to chase him down, I said brandishing a weapon is not assault.

It is when you brandish at someone you've been chasing and trying to detain. Yes?

Yes, it's an objective truth. At the very least, I haven't actually said anything racist and you refuse to give evidence when asked.

No. Not being able to objectively prove you're a racist doesn't mean that objectively you're not a racist. You need objective proof that you're not a racist to prove that you're not a racist. The absence of objective proof that you're a racist isn't not proof that you're not a racist.

This dodge and evasion routine when asked for citation is not a good look for you, intellectually speaking. In a formal debate you would have been laughed off the stage by now.

This isn't a formal debate and neither one of us agreed before hand that the goal of the debate was to prove objectively that one was racist or the other was rash and neither one of us would have been successful in that task.

Irrelevant. The subjectivity of your morals is a moot point when some of those morals conflict with each other. And like I said, you have no problem with false accusations of racism.

They don't conflict, you don't even know what my morals are based on to even be able to make that assessment. Me caring about slaver venerating but not liars who make false accusations about people isn't a conflict, it's just separate interests.

Semantics, dumbass. You used the word "inform". Meaning, the hat conveyed the information that he is racist. The hat cannot inform you of a subjective opinion.

It can inform me he's wearing the merchandise of a man I find to be incredibly racist.

I didn't bring this up to discuss whether or not Sandmann is racist, I brought it up to illustrate how fucking stupid you people are and how easily the media leads you around by the nose.

You mean you brought it up to share an opinion I don't give a shit about? OK.

The "preliminary" autopsy ruled death by homicide due to chest compression.

We're talking about the preliminary report released by the prosecutors office, not the M.E..

I don't buy that. Or rather, I'm not ruling out heart attack given the condition of his arteries.

I don't care what other avenues you pursue in your imaginary racist P.I. practice.

The crowd was already "ginned up" before they had Floyd on the ground. They were gathering around and harassing and catcalling the cops the whole time.

And we're supposed to assume their behavior was uncalled for? Considering how the rest of the arrest went why exactly should we assume this?

This was due to the anti-police movement going on at the time.

So? Was that objectively uncalled for or just subjectively uncalled for according to your opinion?

I have my doubts.

I'm sure that comforts Chauvin at night in his cell.

In my opinion, yes. Not "conveniently" though.

That's some extraordinary timing....

Irrelevant.

Yes.

Do you need an arbiter to know you should judge the individual by his actions and not the entire group?

Do you know we're not making our judgements from a sizeable number of bad officers within the group and our own personal experiences?

What does politics have to do with anything?

If you can't figure that out you're a born loser.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That's your way of putting it. You said that the people who honor slavers aren't thinking about the slaves. Well that much is fucking obvious. What doesn't seem obvious to you is how racist that is. Their black victims dont matter? That seems objectively racist to me.

So cry about it.

The respect and honor you have for men and a society who kept them as property.

Not quite.

My issue isn't you criticizing the McMichaels, it's with you victim blaming the innocent black jogger.

Blaming him for what? The McMichaels chased him in their truck but Arbery was the first to attempt physical assault.

You may be having a hard time with this but it's a fact.

This argument assumes that people require objective evidence before having subjective opinions.

No, it assumes that you think your morals are objectively correct or better.

Is that the case?

No.

Do you need to know objectively, that OJ murdered his wife before you subjectively think he's a killer? If I see you waving a nazi flag it doesn't matter that waving a nazi flag isn't objective proof that you're a nazi, I'm going to think you're a nazi.

You already think I'm a Nazi and I never waved a single flag.

That is nothing more than your interpretation of what my words are intended to convey. Objectively, I never said what you claim I intended to say. It's your semantic argument that's the failure. I maintain that my words "Venerators of Washington venerate a slaver" are meant to convey exactly that. That the person they venerate, Washington, was a slaver. That's it. That simple unfortunate (to slaver venerators) fact is all that sentence is meant to convey. Its subjective ideals, like judeo-christian values, that suggest enslaving people is morally wrong.

Bullshit. You've been bragging about your using inflammatory and emotional language and how effective you think it is so I know that's what you meant to convey.

I've made an objective case that venerators of Washington = venerators of a slaver. Just because this language inflames your emotions doesn't mean it isn't objective.

Don't flatter yourself.

Chasing someone while you're holding a gun in your hand is implicitly violent.

Threatening, maybe. Violent? No.

The father was riding in the back of the pick up with a gun in his hand.

They approached Arbery head-on which means Arbery likely didn't see the gun in the father's hand behind the cab.

What you imagine doesn't dispute the facts which are that armed men illegally chased down and tried to detain a black man and ended up murdering him when he resisted their violent and illegal actions.

And they were sent to prison for it, which I've already said they deserved. So what's your fucking problem?

I'm questioning you because nothing you're saying is making any fucking sense. Were the McMichaels doing anything illegal as the chased down and tried to detain Arbery with cars and guns? Yes or No? If No, then how are they legally at fault for Arbery attacking them first as you also claim?

I said they deserved to go to prison and they did. What else do you want from me?

It is when you brandish at someone you've been chasing and trying to detain. Yes?

As I said, a case could be made for threatening but I don't think assault counts unless you actually make physical contact in some way.

No. Not being able to objectively prove you're a racist doesn't mean that objectively you're not a racist. You need objective proof that you're not a racist to prove that you're not a racist.

That's not how it works. The accused is not obligated to prove innocence and in this case it would be impossible to do. As a rule, you can't prove a negative.

The absence of objective proof that you're a racist isn't not proof that you're not a racist.

And you still haven't provided citation other than the usual meaningless race hustler rhetoric; "It's the things you say".

They don't conflict, you don't even know what my morals are based on to even be able to make that assessment.

Oh yes I do. You've made it clear how you feel about slavers but you also said you have no problem with bearing false witness when it comes to judging racism.

To me, that is the epitome of intellectually lazy, shitheel douchebaggery.

Me caring about slaver venerating but not liars who make false accusations about people isn't a conflict, it's just separate interests.

YOU are the fucking liar, dumbass.

It can inform me he's wearing the merchandise of a man I find to be incredibly racist.

So take it up with the man you find "incredibly racist" then numbnuts. The fuck's it got to do with Sandmann and the incident in D.C.?

You mean you brought it up to share an opinion I don't give a shit about? OK.

Tell me, when the story first broke, you thought Sandmann harassed Phillips, didn't you? I'll bet you did you race hustling fuck.

We're talking about the preliminary report released by the prosecutors office, not the M.E..

How can a prosecutor release an autopsy report?

And we're supposed to assume their behavior was uncalled for?

Yes, it was. In the beginning they only wanted to talk to Floyd but he immediately began resisting; crying for his mama while still in his own vehicle. Because of this, they had to pull him from his car, put cuffs on him and tried to put him in the cruiser but he resisted that too. At one point he was sitting on the sidewalk leaned back against the building while the officers discussed what to do.

Everything the officers did was within standard procedures all the way up until Chauvin's knee. He was not being mistreated in any way up to that point but Floyd made it sound like they were shoving bamboo under his fingernails.

So all the crying, moaning and hollering - needless as it was - is what got the crowd stirred up.

So? Was that objectively uncalled for or just subjectively uncalled for according to your opinion?

Which, individual officers or the entire law enforcement community?

I'm sure that comforts Chauvin at night in his cell.

Ya never know...

Do you know we're not making our judgements from a sizeable number of bad officers within the group and our own personal experiences?

Not sure I understand the question the way it's worded. But I will say this, it serves no purpose to freak out every time a black man is shot by police. The prudent thing to do would be to wait for the investigation. But that is not what usually happens

 

[Curried Goats]

Blaming him for what? The McMichaels chased him in their truck but Arbery was the first to attempt physical assault.

You may be having a hard time with this but it's a fact.

If the McMichaels didn't assault Arbery then what do you think they should be in jail for? If they never attacked Arbery then Arbery couldn't of been acting in self defense. Nothing about your understanding of what went down is consistent or makes any sense.

No, it assumes that you think your morals are objectively correct or better.

That's just your poor critical thinking skills. I think my morals are subjectively more appealing to the mainstream, i.e. it's easier for me to shame and ridicule slaver venerators than it is for people like you to advocate slaver loving. Even slaver lovers like you are so embarrassed by it that you've gone page after page in denial of the simple objective fact that venerators of Washington, venerate a slaver. You feel a compulsion to defend your slaver loving by insisting the slaving has nothing to do with it. That you're not considering the atrocities done to those slaves by the slavers you love and respect, as if that makes it better.....

You already think I'm a Nazi and I never waved a single flag.

I think you're the equivalent of a nazi lover because you've advocated for the American equivalent of Nazi veneration.

Bullshit. You've been bragging about your using inflammatory and emotional language and how effective you think it is so I know that's what you meant to convey.

I don't have to claim that you love slavery to inflame your emotions. Look how simply pointing out that you love and respect slavers does that all on its own.

Threatening, maybe. Violent? No.


They approached Arbery head-on which means Arbery likely didn't see the gun in the father's hand behind the cab.

They chased him in two cars all over the neighborhood, yelling at him to comply with their commands by their own admission. You've only seen the end of the confrontation.

And they were sent to prison for it, which I've already said they deserved. So what's your fucking problem?

Sent to prison for what? My problem is you can't articulate what they did that you think was illegal. You can't articulate how Arbery had a right to defend himself if he was never even attacked in the first place. And you can't articulate why you think the McMichaels should even be in prison when according to you they were the victims of an initial assault. Nothing you've said about this incident makes any coherent bit of sense.

I said they deserved to go to prison and they did. What else do you want from me?

I want you to keep proving what a racist Bingo you are and you're performing admirably.

As I said, a case could be made for threatening but I don't think assault counts unless you actually make physical contact in some way.

Threatening someone while holding a gun in your hand is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Owning a gun doesn't bestow on you some special privilege to jump in your pick up and play vigilante. It does not imbue you with the legal authority to hold people at gun point because you feel like it.

That's not how it works. The accused is not obligated to prove innocence and in this case it would be impossible to do. As a rule, you can't prove a negative.

I'm not saying the accused is required to prove their innocence. I'm saying lack of objective proof that you're a racist isn't itself objective proof that you're not a racist. When lacking any objective proof either way what you're left with are two people with equally subjective opinions.

And you still haven't provided citation other than the usual meaningless race hustler rhetoric; "It's the things you say".

Race hustler is as subjective as racist.

Oh yes I do. You've made it clear how you feel about slavers but you also said you have no problem with bearing false witness when it comes to judging racism.

No. I said I don't care about other people's false allegations. Obviously I don't think my opinions are false or I'd have different opinions.

Tell me, when the story first broke, you thought Sandmann harassed Phillips, didn't you? I'll bet you did you race hustling fuck.

Look who's making assumptions about me while accusing me of making assumptions about others.

You can go back and search my comments if you like. I believe at the time that my take was we don't know what happened but that he was a kid so who the fuck cares. Just because I think he's a racist little shit in a MAGA hat doesn't mean I that I don't recognize he's also a kid. Being a kid is the time to get shit wrong and make mistakes, not that he did. I'm also not salty about him getting a pay out from the settlements with CNN and MSNBC. They're corporate establishment mouthpieces. I don't feel sorry for anything that happens to them.

How can a prosecutor release an autopsy report?

They didn't release an autopsy report. They released a preliminary report on the investigation that included select findings from the initial autopsy.

Medical examiner: No pressure on Floyd autopsy report

Dr. Andrew Baker, Hennepin County’s chief medical examiner, said Floyd died after police “subdual, restraint and neck compression” caused his heart and lungs to stop. He said heart disease and drug use were factors but not the “top line” causes. He said Floyd had an enlarged heart that needed more oxygen than normal, as well as narrowed arteries.

Thao’s attorney, Robert Paule, asked Tuesday whether Baker was pressured into listing “neck compression” as a factor in his autopsy report. Baker testified that he told prosecutors on the day of Floyd’s autopsy that there was no physical evidence of asphyxia, or insufficient oxygen. Prosecutors put that information in their initial complaint against Chauvin, and listed existing health conditions, police restraint and potential intoxicants as contributing factors.

Yes, it was. In the beginning they only wanted to talk to Floyd but he immediately began resisting; crying for his mama while still in his own vehicle. Because of this, they had to pull him from his car, put cuffs on him and tried to put him in the cruiser but he resisted that too. At one point he was sitting on the sidewalk leaned back against the building while the officers discussed what to do.

They had him in the cruiser. They took him back out of the cruiser because he was struggling and complaining of claustrophobia.

Everything the officers did was within standard procedures all the way up until Chauvin's knee. He was not being mistreated in any way up to that point but Floyd made it sound like they were shoving bamboo under his fingernails.

So all the crying, moaning and hollering - needless as it was - is what got the crowd stirred up.

You don't know basic facts about the case, I'm supposed to think you're an expert on the crowd and it's motivation?

Which, individual officers or the entire law enforcement community?


Ya never know...


Not sure I understand the question the way it's worded. But I will say this, it serves no purpose to freak out every time a black man is shot by police. The prudent thing to do would be to wait for the investigation. But that is not what usually happens

Oh, a racist thinks black people should remain patient and calm as they explain to us why we all just watched them kneel on a man's neck until he died, so surprised there.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

If the McMichaels didn't assault Arbery then what do you think they should be in jail for?

Why does it matter?

If they never attacked Arbery then Arbery couldn't of been acting in self defense. Nothing about your understanding of what went down is consistent or makes any sense.

They were convicted for chasing him down and the altercation that ended with Arbery's death.

This is where things get sticky and is why I say morality is not simple: You could say Arbery was defending himself and in the eyes of the law I suppose he was. But the fact remains he attacked physically first. Does this mean I think he shouldn't have attacked? Not necessarily. I will say that, for the sake of his own safety, he probably shouldn't have. But then, he didn't know what the McMichaels' intentions were either.

So, in the end, the McMichaels initiated the confrontation (their being armed certainly didn't help) so they were ultimately responsible for what happened and is why I say they deserve to be in prison.

That's just your poor critical thinking skills. I think my morals are subjectively more appealing to the mainstream, i.e. it's easier for me to shame and ridicule slaver venerators than it is for people like you to advocate slaver loving.

You ought to know by now I don't give a loose shit in a high wind about mainstream morality. Mainstream morality is even more conflicted than you are. It can't even get its shit together on what defines racism and it also condemns Confederate statues while displaying antisemitism at the same time.

Fuck mainstream morality.

I think you're the equivalent of a nazi lover because you've advocated for the American equivalent of Nazi veneration.

And yet I never waved a flag.

I don't have to claim that you love slavery to inflame your emotions. Look how simply pointing out that you love and respect slavers does that all on its own.

Irrelevant. It's what you meant to convey.

They chased him in two cars all over the neighborhood, yelling at him to comply with their commands by their own admission. You've only seen the end of the confrontation.

Just can't let it go, can you?

Sent to prison for what? My problem is you can't articulate what they did that you think was illegal.

Why does that bother you?

If I say they shouldn't have been sent to prison, I'm a racist. If I say they should have been sent to prison, I'm a racist.

Like I said before, you've got all the bases covered to where you never have to question your own views and morality.

You can't articulate how Arbery had a right to defend himself if he was never even attacked in the first place. And you can't articulate why you think the McMichaels should even be in prison when according to you they were the victims of an initial assault. Nothing you've said about this incident makes any coherent bit of sense.

Drives you crazy, doesn't it?

I want you to keep proving what a racist Bingo you are and you're performing admirably.

What would be the point in that?

Threatening someone while holding a gun in your hand is aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

But did they actually threaten Arbery with their firearms? I don't believe so. All they were doing up to the point Arbery attacked was holding them.

It might be what they were charged and convicted on but the Georgia penal code says:

"a A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:

1. With intent to murder, to rape, or to rob;
2. With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury;
3. With any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in strangulation; or
4. A person or persons without legal justification by discharging a firearm from within a motor vehicle toward a person or persons.

But anyway, like I said, it was a stupid thing to do and they are where they belong.

Owning a gun doesn't bestow on you some special privilege to jump in your pick up and play vigilante. It does not imbue you with the legal authority to hold people at gun point because you feel like it.

No shit. It's part of what they were convicted on.

I'm not saying the accused is required to prove their innocence. I'm saying lack of objective proof that you're a racist isn't itself objective proof that you're not a racist. When lacking any objective proof either way what you're left with are two people with equally subjective opinions.

Race hustler is as subjective as racist.

Then you're just as much a race hustler as I am racist, aren't you?

No. I said I don't care about other people's false allegations.

Exactly.

Obviously I don't think my opinions are false or I'd have different opinions.

Of course you don't. But of course some are.

Look who's making assumptions about me while accusing me of making assumptions about others.

It was a question. Can or will you answer it?

You can go back and search my comments if you like. I believe at the time that my take was we don't know what happened but that he was a kid so who the fuck cares.

But we DO know what happened.

Just because I think he's a racist little shit in a MAGA hat doesn't mean I that I don't recognize he's also a kid. Being a kid is the time to get shit wrong and make mistakes, not that he did. I'm also not salty about him getting a pay out from the settlements with CNN and MSNBC. They're corporate establishment mouthpieces. I don't feel sorry for anything that happens to them.

Don't forget his smile. How racist was that smile?

They didn't release an autopsy report. They released a preliminary report on the investigation that included select findings from the initial autopsy.

What difference does that make? The investigation report was the preliminary report, not Baker's autopsy report and it was based on Baker's autopsy report.

Medical examiner: No pressure on Floyd autopsy report

Why are you linking this? I never said or implied that Baker was pressured.

They had him in the cruiser. They took him back out of the cruiser because he was struggling and complaining of claustrophobia.

After taking him from the claustrophobic confines of his own SUV.

You don't know basic facts about the case,

You're the one who said in the beginning that Baker's autopsy report was preliminary.

I'm supposed to think you're an expert on the crowd and it's motivation?

Think whatever you like. But you know as well as I do that officers were getting harassed a lot by bystanders when performing arrests of suspects, even if the suspect was not being mistreated in any way.

Oh, a racist thinks black people should remain patient and calm as they explain to us why we all just watched them kneel on a man's neck until he died, so surprised there.

Oh, a race hustler thinks people should burn, loot and destroy even if the officers are innocent or did nothing wrong.