A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
P.S. So you really won't do it? I thought you might see the humor in it.

the poo face is too small. if you find a large image of the poo face it might work, but it seems like the whole image would be necessary for it to work. The hank face doesn't blend in well-enough for larger images. Did you ever see the Hank/ncs avatar? it was a great idea. it didn't work at all.

oh. reading between the lines, you will note I did at least look at the images out there.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
SAM forgive me, here are the first two posts by me and him:

(Please note that my comment was not directed at anything he said, but he quoted what I said and responded to it directly. In addition, my quote is my first comment on the subject. If you could, please focus on the type in bold and explain to me how they were a rational response to my statement). After that, if you want, we can deal with subsequent posts.

Spanky:

I believe in individual responsiblity, not familial or racial responisibilty. Am I responsible for my father's sins? - no. Am I responsible for the sins other people of my race have committed? - no.

Racism cannot be justified because you have been a victim of racism (or that other people of your race have been victims). Racism or racial slurs are either wrong or they are not.

TM:

I'm not going to spend too much time on this because I think it's pointless, but historical racism is responsible for the current state of affairs in this country. The stigma attached to being black permeates every aspect of life, from what socio-economic class you're born into, to your job prospects, to your everyday social interactions (especially with the police). Likewise, the position you're in if you're white, relative to black people, is a result of the same, whether your family came here yesterday or 200 years ago.

So don't give me that load of bullshit about slavery happening long ago and how you weren't personally involved. No one is accusing you of intentionally trying to benefit from it and no one is making you personally responsible for it. But the imprint of the impact of slavery, jim crow and everyday racism from the beginning of the slave trade until now is felt every single day. You can choose to walk around pretending that that time is long over, because the only negative impact you feel is when, as pony said, a black person can feel comfortable making a racial joke at your expense because of the truth of historical racism and who it affects. And look at the fit you throw when someone even mentions the prospect.

_____________________________________________________
Please focus on these statements and explain who they were a rational response to what I said:

So don't give me that load of bullshit about slavery happening long ago and how you weren't personally involved.

You can choose to walk around pretending that that time is long over, because the only negative impact you feel is when, as pony said, a black person can feel comfortable making a racial joke at your expense because of the truth of historical racism and who it affects. And look at the fit you throw when someone even mentions the prospect.

TM was responding more to your first paragraph than to your second. As I understand what he was saying, he was not arguing that it's fine for blacks to use racial slurs simply because other blacks have been victims of racism. He was responding to your suggestion that you are not responsible for racial inequalities in this country ("Am I responsible for my father's sins? - no."). He was not suggesting that you are directly responsible, but he was saying that you enjoy benefits -- and blacks experience harms -- from the continuing effects of slavery. I'd need to see the posts before you got into the conversation to be sure, but I think the last bit above was a reference to the specific part of the prior exchange that you started posting about -- i.e., your choice of topic, as opposed to what you said about it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
TM was responding more to your first paragraph than to your second. As I understand what he was saying, he was not arguing that it's fine for blacks to use racial slurs simply because other blacks have been victims of racism. He was responding to your suggestion that you are not responsible for racial inequalities in this country ("Am I responsible for my father's sins? - no."). He was not suggesting that you are directly responsible, but he was saying that you enjoy benefits -- and blacks experience harms -- from the continuing effects of slavery. I'd need to see the posts before you got into the conversation to be sure, but I think the last bit above was a reference to the specific part of the prior exchange that you started posting about -- i.e., your choice of topic, as opposed to what you said about it.

Of course you avoided the comments in bold. Why? How can you expect to have any crediblity when you pretend something you don't like just doesn't exist? You said TM was being rational. How can anyone argue that those comments in bold were rational in any way? Please explain to me why those comments in bold were rational or admit that TM. was. being. irrational. If you can't do either of those you might as well chop of your balls because they are of no use to you anyway.


And FYI. Here was the post I was responding to (not that it should matter, he was responding to my post directly).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pony_trekker
Because it wouldn't have beeen a big deal. The fundamental difference between a white person using racial slurs toward a black and a black using racial slurs toward a white is this country's history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the poo face is too small. if you find a large image of the poo face it might work, but it seems like the whole image would be necessary for it to work. The hank face doesn't blend in well-enough for larger images. Did you ever see the Hank/ncs avatar? it was a great idea. it didn't work at all.

You're probably right.

So. Once again a liberal's dream is thwarted by the need for practical application.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Just about all the Democrats here buy into the sanctity of conceptions like "economic equality" and that the Govt is a more benevolent than harmful entity. If you think we should fiddle with markets and engage in social engineering or that we can never have enough regulations, you're tilting in the direction of Berkeley.

A nice litmus test for whether you lean toward Berkely is if you think we ought to hit Big Oil with a windfall tax. If you think that's valid, moral, or at all the product of a coherent understanding of Big Oil's business cycles, you're not just in Berkeley... you're in the DisneyLand version of it.*

But you're right, "Berkeley-think" was hyperbole. Most of the people here aren't in that realm (though some I suspect are secretly so, but don't want to embarrass themselves... so they cite to Berkeley-think blogs as soft proxies).


*Which does not exist, but you get the point.

Oh. My. God. I think I am guilty of Berkeley think. I think the argument behind taxing oil to wean ourselves off oil has some merit to it. In addition I support a progressive income tax, and taxing the rich more in general, because I think they benefit the most from our government (so they should pay for most of it) and to mitigate some of the economic discrepancies created by the free market system.

I do live kind of near Berkeley. Maybe I have caught something? Can I get a shot for that?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Of course you avoided the comments in bold.

I thought I was pretty clear, but I guess I have to say it clearer. When TM said, "So don't give me that load of bullshit about slavery happening long ago and how you weren't personally involved," he was responding to your line about not being responsible for your father's sins. When TM said,

• You can choose to walk around pretending that that time is long over, because the only negative impact you feel is when, as pony said, a black person can feel comfortable making a racial joke at your expense because of the truth of historical racism and who it affects. And look at the fit you throw when someone even mentions the prospect.

he was responding to that same assertion, and to the fact that you jumped into the conversation to disagree with pony's (implied) assertion that it's no big thing for a black to use racial insults against a white. TM's point was that, as a white person, you enjoy various advantages, an unfairness that you don't post or complain about, but you did jump into the conversation to complain about the notion that there's nothing wrong when blacks (hypothetically) use race against you.

To be clear, I'm trying to capture TM's gist, not saying that I necessarily agree with it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I do live kind of near Berkeley. Maybe I have caught something? Can I get a shot for that?

Regardless of whatever medical advice you may get, I would take advantage of your proximity to Berkeley by dining at Cafe Rouge or Tacubaya.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
TM was responding more to your first paragraph than to your second. As I understand what he was saying, he was not arguing that it's fine for blacks to use racial slurs simply because other blacks have been victims of racism. He was responding to your suggestion that you are not responsible for racial inequalities in this country ("Am I responsible for my father's sins? - no."). He was not suggesting that you are directly responsible, but he was saying that you enjoy benefits -- and blacks experience harms -- from the continuing effects of slavery. I'd need to see the posts before you got into the conversation to be sure, but I think the last bit above was a reference to the specific part of the prior exchange that you started posting about -- i.e., your choice of topic, as opposed to what you said about it.

If he said "since you benefit from racism you are partially responsible", I would have disagreed with him, but at least that would have been a rational and sensible argument. But the fact that you have to interpret what he said, (and that is assuming that that's what he was trying to argue) shows that he made a poor argument. It was not rational at all. The fact that he also made personal attacks , and accused me of saying things I never said, also showed post was irrational.

And if that is what he was trying to say why all the hyperbole about all sorts of other stuff. You can't even figure out what it all meant yet you say it was rational? Give it up.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Regardless of whatever medical advice you may get, I would take advantage of your proximity to Berkeley by dining at Cafe Rouge or Tacubaya.

I have been to Cafe Rouge. Maybe that is where I caught the bug. There were a lot of ageing hippies, incense and hippies about.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
If he said "since you benefit from racism you are partially responsible", I would have disagreed with him, but at least that would have been a rational and sensible argument.

But "partially responsible" for what? And I don't think he was trying to argue about "responsibility." He was disagreeing with your stance of neutrality.

But the fact that you have to interpret what he said, (and that is assuming that that's what he was trying to argue) shows that he made a poor argument. It was not rational at all. The fact that he also made personal attacks , and accused me of saying things I never said, also showed post was irrational.

Those things don't suggest irrationality to me. They suggest that he has a different style. But maybe I think that because I've seen him post on the FB and am familiar with his style.

And if that is what he was trying to say why all the hyperbole about all sorts of other stuff.

What other stuff?

TM has been one of the sharpest posters on these boards for years. I don't always agree with him, but he's not irrational.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have been to Cafe Rouge. Maybe that is where I caught the bug. There were a lot of ageing hippies, incense and hippies about.

Which is odd, since hippies aren't so much into the red meat thing.

I have been to Cafe Rouge many, many times, and have never experienced the whiff of incense about. Perhaps you were catching the aroma of the sake factory that RT was talking about.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Oh. My. God. I think I am guilty of Berkeley think. I think the argument behind taxing oil to wean ourselves off oil has some merit to it.

That has little to do with a windfall profits tax (which I am against).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought I was pretty clear, but I guess I have to say it clearer. When TM said, "So don't give me that load of bullshit about slavery happening long ago and how you weren't personally involved," he was responding to your line about not being responsible for your father's sins.

I did not say a long time ago and I never said I wasn't personally involved. I talked about my father's sins. My fathers sins could have happened yesterday.

I understand how you could ascertain what he thought my post said, or how someone who was not reading it carefully could read this stuff into it, but that does not mean he made a rational response to my post and was not putting words in my mouth.

A rational response would have been, " Spanky, you said, I am not responsible for my fathers sins, but in the specfic case of slavery in America you are wrong because you are partially responsbile for your fathers sins because you benefit from your fathers sins". But instead of making a rational response to my post (like the one above) he mischaracterizes what I said and makes arguments that are unclear and misleading. It is a perfect example of an irrational straw man argument. That is plain as the nose on my face. And you know it.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• You can choose to walk around pretending that that time is long over, because the only negative impact you feel is when, as pony said, a black person can feel comfortable making a racial joke at your expense because of the truth of historical racism and who it affects. And look at the fit you throw when someone even mentions the prospect.

he was responding to that same assertion, and to the fact that you jumped into the conversation to disagree with pony's (implied) assertion that it's no big thing for a black to use racial insults against a white. TM's point was that, as a white person, you enjoy various advantages, an unfairness that you don't post or complain about, but you did jump into the conversation to complain about the notion that there's nothing wrong when blacks (hypothetically) use race against you.

What makes this so doubly absured, is that he never came close to saying that you are partially responsible for you fathers sins, or you are partially responsible for racism because you benefit from it. We go through pages and pages and he never makes that plain statement. And other people jumped in to defend him and yet I don't think any of them understood that that was the argument he was making: that in certain circumstances someone is responsible for their father's sins.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop To be clear, I'm trying to capture TM's gist,

You are trying to make sense of what he said and yet you still claim it was a rational argument. By having to interpret what he said you are admitting it was not a rational response to what I posted.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
not saying that I necessarily agree with it.

I don't think TM realized what he was saying. I could be wrong but I don't think even he thinks people are even partially responsible for their father's sins. And if he didn't even understand the ramifications of the argument he was making (if that was the argument he was making) how can that argument be rational?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I did not say a long time ago and I never said I wasn't personally involved. I talked about my father's sins. My fathers sins could have happened yesterday.

I understand how you could ascertain what he thought my post said, or how someone who was not reading it carefully could read this stuff into it, but that does not mean he made a rational response to my post and was not putting words in my mouth.

A rational response would have been, " Spanky, you said, I am not responsible for my fathers sins, but in the specfic case of slavery in America you are wrong because you are partially responsbile for your fathers sins because you benefit from your fathers sins". But instead of making a rational response to my post (like the one above) he mischaracterizes what I said and makes arguments that are unclear and misleading. It is a perfect example of an irrational straw man argument. That is plain as the nose on my face. And you know it.




What makes this so doubly absured, is that he never came close to saying that you are partially responsible for you fathers sins, or you are partially responsible for racism because you benefit from it. We go through pages and pages and he never makes that plain statement. And other people jumped in to defend him and yet I don't think any of them understood that that was the argument he was making: that in certain circumstances someone is responsible for their father's sins.



You are trying to make sense of what he said and yet you still claim it was a rational argument. By having to interpret what he said you are admitting it was not a rational response to what I posted.



I don't think TM realized what he was saying. I could be wrong but I don't think even he thinks people are even partially responsible for their father's sins. And if he didn't even understand the ramifications of the argument he was making (if that was the argument he was making) how can that argument be rational?

We'll have to agree to disagree about whether TM and/or his response were irrational.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But "partially responsible" for what? And I don't think he was trying to argue about "responsibility." He was disagreeing with your stance of neutrality.

Neutrality? Where do you come up with these words? That is as meaninlgess as a "general argument". I said that I (and implied everyone else) is not responsible for their father's sins. You said he disagreed with that statement. If not that statement, then what statemet? I never used the word neutrality, why don't you use the words that were used instead of making some up an ascribing it to me. He warps my saying that I am not resonsible for my father's sins into slavery happened a long time ago and you warp into me saying I am neutrual. The statement says what it says, "I am not responsible for my father's sins."

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Those things don't suggest irrationality to me. They suggest that he has a different style. But maybe I think that because I've seen him post on the FB and am familiar with his style.

So instead of admitting that mischaracterizing what someone says, not making yourself clear, putting words in other people's mouths is a style, then so be it. There is no such thing as a bad or irrational argument, just different styles. We will call it Ty relativism: you can argue any way you want, claim stuff that is not true, be emotional, but that won't be irrational, it will just be a "style."

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What other stuff?

Accordig you he was making a statment that could come down to one line yet it went on for two paragraphs. That other stuff.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
TM has been one of the sharpest posters on these boards for years. I don't always agree with him, but he's not irrational.

That may be true, but if it is true, then on this exchange he was off his game.