Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#377 Mar 11 2011 at 10:25 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji,

So, are you going to answer my question or is this it? I'm trying to resolve your concerns, but I can't do so, because you just refuse to participate. At this point, you're purposely being dense to argue fictional arguments that no one is making.


Edit:
Gbaji wrote:
But predictably, Alma spun the whole thing into talk about whether labels as a whole were good or bad and missed that it wasn't just about the labels themselves. It's why you label something, and what you do with regard to that label.


Exactly this, you don't listen to what I say, then you turn around making false arguments. If you actually participated in the debate, you would have been able to connect the dots. Instead, you "labeled" my statements as irrelevant, that's why you're so confused.

Uglysasquatch wrote:
Alma wrote:
Gbaji,

I give up
Next time, leave it at that and maybe someone will believe you. "I give up" but then write a 12 page essay is hardly giving up.


Maybe if you cared to read the rest of the "12 page essay", you would have realized that I wasn't giving up arguing with him, but giving up playing the "I'm not going to answer your questions" game.

Edited, Mar 12th 2011 6:59am by Almalieque
#378 Mar 12 2011 at 9:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Kachi wrote:
That may be true from certain philosophical perspectives; however, if I do, using your example, consider it a felicific problem, then I could defensibly argue that within a framework of hedonistic utilitarianism, happiness is a quantifiable outcome where one could theoretically establish which side is correct. Math may not debate, but humans frequently debate about the application and interpretation of mathematics. Not everyone can solve a given math problem correctly. The difficulty lies not in solving an obvious equation correctly, but determining the correct methodology for solving the problem. Debates are often scientifically concluded in this way.

In a world where ignorance of both the knowable and the unknowable runs rampant, I firmly believe that there are plenty of debates with initial solutions and without.
Smiley: oyvey I do like how you argued against yourself for a bit though, delightful.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#379 Mar 13 2011 at 4:48 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Actually, I'm genuinely waiting for you to correctly characterize my point.


Lol. Kinda makes two of us then. How about, since it's your point and all, you characterize it.

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, I've sufficiently explained my argument...


That's clearly false. Well, it's either false, or you are deliberately pretending that I don't understand your point because you don't want to have to defend it. I'm going with the latter actually, because the point you made is neither unusual nor particularly complex. Amusingly, it's the exact same point Alma is making, and he's also gone to great lengths to obfuscate it after the fact in order to avoid having to defend some of the more obvious logical gaps.


It's like a twofer in here!


I've already characterized it TWICE, and you didn't understand it either time. Considering I put it in pretty plain terms both times, I don't know why you think I would try again, particularly with your history of deliberate ignorance.

If you can't even get this far on your own, I figure the inevitably inane arguments to follow aren't worth skipping to by holding your hand through the EASY part.

Sir Xsarus wrote:
I do like how you argued against yourself for a bit though, delightful.


Did you even follow that exchange? Seems not. Thanks for chiming in anyway.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#380 Mar 13 2011 at 10:42 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Kachi wrote:
particularly with your history of deliberate ignorance.


It's strange how I never noticed that before until now. Even when we disagreed with previous topics, he seemed a lot more reasonable.
#381 Mar 13 2011 at 10:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Kachi wrote:
Did you even follow that exchange? Seems not. Thanks for chiming in anyway.
This new "I'm super smart" thing you're playing at is great. It needs a bit of work though, also we already have a few people playing this role, but feel free to attempt to join them.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#382Kachi, Posted: Mar 14 2011 at 1:51 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yeah, I'm suddenly out of the closet after 8k posts because it matters so much to me that my intelligence is recognized. As an fyi, I've considered myself a hedonistic utilitarian for years, and I don't view my intellect as anything more than fortuitous circumstance that serves the purpose of promoting happiness. However, when other people try to put me down because they aren't impressed with what I have to say, so long as they're keeping score, I have no problem pointing out that extremely intelligent real life people think highly of my intelligence, which casts a leery shadow over the assessment of bitter internet people.
#383 Mar 14 2011 at 3:04 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
There's not much point pointing that out to us, though. It might be true that you've got intelligent people slobbering all over you, but there's no reason for us to believe so. If it's true, but you don't want to prove it, keep it to yourself; however much solace it gives you, you're not going to persuade the unconvinced without proof (or with it, perhaps, but one step at a time).

Quote:
This new "I'm super smart" thing you're playing at is great. It needs a bit of work though, also we already have a few people playing this role, but feel free to attempt to join them.


More than not, by my count. Including myself, obviously.

Edited, Mar 14th 2011 9:09am by Kavekk

Edited, Mar 14th 2011 9:10am by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#384 Mar 14 2011 at 7:07 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
We label and group stuff because it makes sense to do so. Simply labeling music as black music or granola music or old-folk music or country music or whatever, doesn't make the music better or worse or evil or good (honestly though, I've never heard people talk about black music - there's rap, gansta, soul, r&b, blues....all owe much to black artists). Labels and groups are simply a sorting and comparison mechanism for our brains.


Yup. This is exactly the point I was trying to make. But the music isn't "black". And clothes aren't "black". We might apply labels to those things purely for convenience, but if I prefer rap or soul or whatever other music someone might call "black", the label isn't why I'm buying that album. I'm buying it because the musical style appeals to me and that musical style is different than others which perhaps don't appeal to me as much. In the same way, if I choose to eat at a Chinese restaurant, it's not because it's labeled "Chinese", but because of the cuisine that is served. If it were labeled something else, I'd still presumably like or dislike the food just the same. The label doesn't really matter.

Quote:
gjabi, the 'evil' or the negative connotations only comes into play when YOU attempt to put value to the groups. If you've already decided that white > black then yeah, it wouldn't make sense to put something into a black group.


Yup. Absolutely. When the label becomes the determinant by which you assess something, then you start getting yourself into trouble. This is why I've been making a point to differentiate buying goods at a store because it sells things you like, versus buying goods there because it's a "black owned" store.


My side point about labels was intended to illustrate why this is the wrong way to make choices. But predictably, Alma spun the whole thing into talk about whether labels as a whole were good or bad and missed that it wasn't just about the labels themselves. It's why you label something, and what you do with regard to that label.

Edited, Mar 11th 2011 3:21pm by gbaji
wtf are you talking about?

A label is a label. We know what they are...no need for your multi-faceted flip-flop of a definition. We make decisions based on labels all the time. Sometimes it's the only thing we have to go on.

If you wanna be bent out of shape because black people might give be giving their business to friends/family/community that are also black rather than spread their business around, so be it. But, you don't see the average middle-class white guy passing by the Publix to shop at the local bodega.




Edited, Mar 14th 2011 3:09pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#385 Mar 14 2011 at 7:08 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
.... also we already have a few people playing this role, but feel free to attempt to join them.
We are all super-smart in our own super-smart ways.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#386 Mar 14 2011 at 8:12 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
.... also we already have a few people playing this role, but feel free to attempt to join them.


As a leader of this elite organization, I assure you that all of our members have been thoroughly verified of their high levels of intellect.
#387 Mar 14 2011 at 4:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Kachi wrote:
I've already characterized it TWICE, and you didn't understand it either time.


I've understood everything you've written perfectly. I honestly suspect you don't understand the implications of the words you write though, because it's when I take what you write and then apply some simple logic to it, you back up rapidly and say "Oh no! I didn't say that. You must have misunderstood me".

It's not me misunderstanding what you are saying, it's you failing to grasp the consequences of your own positions. But I don't expect you to ever acknowledge this. I am hoping that perhaps by making you spin your own words around in circles everyone else will see how silly your argument is.


Quote:
Considering I put it in pretty plain terms both times, I don't know why you think I would try again, particularly with your history of deliberate ignorance.



I'm trying to see if you can word your position in any way that isn't blatantly racially discriminatory. I suspect that you can't, and you've realized this, so you don't want to say anything at all. I don't blame you for this. It's pretty basic human nature really. Social pressures and all that.

Quote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I do like how you argued against yourself for a bit though, delightful.


Did you even follow that exchange? Seems not. Thanks for chiming in anyway.


I'm thinking he saw the exact same thing I did. Could be wrong though. It's possible there was another part where you argued something that was in complete opposition to what you'd said earlier. But I've honestly lost track what with work and then a weekend in between.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#388 Mar 14 2011 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Kavekk wrote:
There's not much point pointing that out to us, though. It might be true that you've got intelligent people slobbering all over you, but there's no reason for us to believe so. If it's true, but you don't want to prove it, keep it to yourself; however much solace it gives you, you're not going to persuade the unconvinced without proof (or with it, perhaps, but one step at a time).


The point of pointing it out isn't so that other people will acknowledge or even believe me, but that maybe they won't be so quick to believe that their ability to gauge the intelligence of others is quite as accurate as they hoped. By all means, doubt me, but doubt yourself too.

@gbaji; You think whatever you like fella, since I know you're going to anyway. I discussed the issue, by happenstance, with a number of people today, as we reviewed an article from a medical journal. Every one of them understood my argument and wondered how we might get idiots like you to understand it as well. Here, I'll even give you a snippet of the article, mostly in lieu of wasting any more time engaging you:

Quote:
Structural violence , a term coined
by Johan Galtung and by liberation
theologians during the 1960s, describes
social structures—economic, political,
legal, religious, and cultural—that stop
individuals, groups, and societies from
reaching their full potential [57]. In its
general usage, the word violence often
conveys a physical image; however,
according to Galtung, it is the “avoidable
impairment of fundamental human
needs or…the impairment of human life,
which lowers the actual degree to which
someone is able to meet their needs
below that which would otherwise be
possible” [58]. Structural violence is often
embedded in longstanding “ubiquitous
social structures, normalized by stable
institutions and regular experience” [59].
Because they seem so ordinary in our
ways of understanding the world, they
appear almost invisible. Disparate access
to resources, political power, education,
health care, and legal standing are just
a few examples. The idea of structural
violence is linked very closely to social
injustice and the social machinery of
oppression [16].
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#389 Mar 14 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
We label and group stuff because it makes sense to do so. Simply labeling music as black music or granola music or old-folk music or country music or whatever, doesn't make the music better or worse or evil or good (honestly though, I've never heard people talk about black music - there's rap, gansta, soul, r&b, blues....all owe much to black artists). Labels and groups are simply a sorting and comparison mechanism for our brains.


Yup. This is exactly the point I was trying to make. But the music isn't "black". And clothes aren't "black". We might apply labels to those things purely for convenience, but if I prefer rap or soul or whatever other music someone might call "black", the label isn't why I'm buying that album. I'm buying it because the musical style appeals to me and that musical style is different than others which perhaps don't appeal to me as much. In the same way, if I choose to eat at a Chinese restaurant, it's not because it's labeled "Chinese", but because of the cuisine that is served. If it were labeled something else, I'd still presumably like or dislike the food just the same. The label doesn't really matter.

Elinda wrote:
gjabi, the 'evil' or the negative connotations only comes into play when YOU attempt to put value to the groups. If you've already decided that white > black then yeah, it wouldn't make sense to put something into a black group.


Yup. Absolutely. When the label becomes the determinant by which you assess something, then you start getting yourself into trouble. This is why I've been making a point to differentiate buying goods at a store because it sells things you like, versus buying goods there because it's a "black owned" store.


My side point about labels was intended to illustrate why this is the wrong way to make choices. But predictably, Alma spun the whole thing into talk about whether labels as a whole were good or bad and missed that it wasn't just about the labels themselves. It's why you label something, and what you do with regard to that label.

Edited, Mar 11th 2011 3:21pm by gbaji
wtf are you talking about?

A label is a label. We know what they are...no need for your multi-faceted flip-flop of a definition. We make decisions based on labels all the time. Sometimes it's the only thing we have to go on.

If you wanna be bent out of shape because black people might give be giving their business to friends/family/community that are also black rather than spread their business around, so be it. But, you don't see the average middle-class white guy passing by the Publix to shop at the local bodega.




Well, as proven from his lack of explanation to his music/clothes label contradiction, this was never a debate about labels with him. It's clear that his problem was specifically the way black Americans decide to interact with society.
#390 Mar 14 2011 at 8:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Kachi wrote:
@gbaji; You think whatever you like fella, since I know you're going to anyway. I discussed the issue, by happenstance, with a number of people today, as we reviewed an article from a medical journal. Every one of them understood my argument and wondered how we might get idiots like you to understand it as well.


And once again, you mistake disagreement with misunderstanding.


Can you even grasp the concept that just because you believe something is true doesn't actually make it true?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#391 Mar 15 2011 at 6:19 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Quote:
By all means, doubt me, but doubt yourself too.
I can't speak for others, but I never doubt my intelligence. My knowledge though, is easily often in question.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#392 Mar 15 2011 at 6:20 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
gbaji wrote:
Can you even grasp the concept that just because you believe something is true doesn't actually make it true?
I don't think he can. I question whether you can as well though.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#393 Mar 15 2011 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Kachi wrote:
As an fyi, I've considered myself a hedonistic utilitarian for years


Heh, my assessment tool proves to be even more accurate than I thought, I was just fishing with the previous allusion, but the feedback was useful. Thanks!

Almalieque wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
.... also we already have a few people playing this role, but feel free to attempt to join them.


As a leader of this elite organization, I assure you that all of our members have been thoroughly verified of their high levels of intellect.

OGODNO

(To be fair, he's probably as smart and toolish as, say, Mensa leadership)
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#394 Mar 15 2011 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Kachi wrote:
Structural violence , a term coined
by Johan Galtung and by liberation
theologians during the 1960s, describes
social structures—economic, political,
legal, religious, and cultural—that stop
individuals, groups, and societies from
reaching their full potential [57]. In its
general usage, the word violence often
conveys a physical image; however,
according to Galtung, it is the “avoidable
impairment of fundamental human
needs or…the impairment of human life,
which lowers the actual degree to which
someone is able to meet their needs
below that which would otherwise be
possible” [58]. Structural violence is often
embedded in longstanding “ubiquitous
social structures, normalized by stable
institutions and regular experience” [59].
Because they seem so ordinary in our
ways of understanding the world, they
appear almost invisible. Disparate access
to resources, political power, education,
health care, and legal standing are just
a few examples. The idea of structural
violence is linked very closely to social
injustice and the social machinery of
oppression [16].


Getting paid by the word for an academic paper, or just unable to say that in a more coherent phrasing? It's not that it's difficult to read or understand, rather that it isn't streamlined to understand. It's still not a sentence, it's a definition written by someone who clearly had better things to do than be readable.

'Structural Violence' is a phrase that refers to the avoidable harm done by social structures. Coined by Johan Galtung and other liberation theologians during the 1960's it attributes malice by concepts such as disparate access to resources, political power, education, health care, and legal standing, as a way of calling for changes in the way we organize our society by restructuring the mechanics of those systems.

Still not really a sentence, but at least you can clearly see what is being defined and why.

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 11:18am by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#395 Mar 15 2011 at 4:04 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
So, I was watching an old episode of South Park and came across a relevant episode.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s08e06-goobacks

If you go to 16:39 of the clip, you'll see a sign that says "Little Future", ridiculing "Little Tokyo". This is just showing my point that the minorities, (in my example Asians) create communities, doing business with themselves.

How it's ok for Asians to do so, but not black Americans still eludes me.
#396 Mar 15 2011 at 6:36 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,150 posts
1984

Edited, May 9th 2011 1:45pm by ShadorVIII
#397 Mar 15 2011 at 6:59 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Baron von ShadorVIII wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
So, I was watching an old episode of South Park and came across a relevant episode.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s08e06-goobacks

If you go to 16:39 of the clip, you'll see a sign that says "Little Future", ridiculing "Little Tokyo". This is just showing my point that the minorities, (in my example Asians) create communities, doing business with themselves.

How it's ok for Asians to do so, but not black Americans still eludes me.


Will it be okay for white people, when we become a minority in about 2050 (maybe sooner)?


What are you talking about? They do that now.
#398 Mar 15 2011 at 7:09 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,150 posts
1984

Edited, May 9th 2011 1:45pm by ShadorVIII
#399 Mar 15 2011 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Baron von ShadorVIII wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Baron von ShadorVIII wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
So, I was watching an old episode of South Park and came across a relevant episode.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s08e06-goobacks

If you go to 16:39 of the clip, you'll see a sign that says "Little Future", ridiculing "Little Tokyo". This is just showing my point that the minorities, (in my example Asians) create communities, doing business with themselves.

How it's ok for Asians to do so, but not black Americans still eludes me.


Will it be okay for white people, when we become a minority in about 2050 (maybe sooner)?


What are you talking about? They do that now.


True, but unlike Asians or blacks, when we try to create one of these "communities" to help our own, we get called "racist". Hardly fair, IMO.


Not by any reasonable person. Just like how white people choose to live together, so do other ethnic groups. No one cares, because if they wanted to live next to someone of another ethnic group, then they should have not chosen to live in a predominately ethnic neighborhood. The only scenario where I can see someone actually getting offended is having their neighbors actually MOVE AWAY because you showed up, but we aren't talking about that situation.
#400 Mar 15 2011 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kachi wrote:
@gbaji; You think whatever you like fella, since I know you're going to anyway. I discussed the issue, by happenstance, with a number of people today, as we reviewed an article from a medical journal. Every one of them understood my argument and wondered how we might get idiots like you to understand it as well.


And once again, you mistake disagreement with misunderstanding.


Can you even grasp the concept that just because you believe something is true doesn't actually make it true?


So far you haven't been able to restate my point in your own words. When you are able to do so and then disagree with it, then I will happily accept that you understand. Until then, I already know that you WILL disagree so it's much more amusing to troll you for having the mental prowess of a grade-schooler.

Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
By all means, doubt me, but doubt yourself too.
I can't speak for others, but I never doubt my intelligence. My knowledge though, is easily often in question.


I was referring to doubting one's knowledge of another's intelligence. Doubting your own intelligence may be a valuable exercise in humility from time to time, but it's probably better to preserve your self-esteem/efficacy.

Timelordwho wrote:
Kachi wrote:
As an fyi, I've considered myself a hedonistic utilitarian for years


Heh, my assessment tool proves to be even more accurate than I thought, I was just fishing with the previous allusion, but the feedback was useful. Thanks!


It was a transparent attempt. I made a minuscule effort to humor you for your effort, so you're welcome, I guess.

re: the article snippet-- it was perfectly coherent to me. Perhaps not the best technical writing by strict standards, but it effectively conveys the concept it intends to.

Edited, Mar 15th 2011 6:33pm by Kachi
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#401 Mar 15 2011 at 7:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Kachi wrote:
So far you haven't been able to restate my point in your own words.


Yes I have. Several times, in fact. You just haven't been able to understand it. ;)



Seriously, Kachi? Your point isn't special or unique. It's very common, and is held by a lot of people. I've probably run into it (and argued against it) dozens of times on this forum. I have heard not one thing from you that deviates from the same position argued with the same arguments uttered by dozens of other people in the past. You are not a snowflake you know.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)