MAGA

[GMDino]

(07-16-2019, 04:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Things that make you go, hmmmm.

Please stay on topic.  Eventually these personal attacks are going to get someone suspended.  

I don't see it as such...other might.

If you feel you are a victim of racism and you are a white male that is on you.  I don't feel that way when I read or hear "racist" things about white people.

The question of the thread is what does MAGA mean?  My personal views on not feeling I am a victim have nothing to do with it.

[GMDino]

(07-16-2019, 04:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Regardless of your mentality a white person can be a victim of racist comments, cartoons, memes, jokes....just like anyone else.A person "feeling the victim" knows no race.

You are just coming up with things to excuse your endless racist comments all the while shaking your fist at the racist. Maybe you should try standing up to you.

I'm all for helping someone in need. I'm just not willing to base need solely on race. 

Enough with the personal attacks.

I stated my case for why *I* do not feel I am a victim of racism ever and that personally I don't see how a white person can feel that way.  That doesn't make it a law you must follow.

What does MAGA mean?

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2019, 04:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Please stay on topic.  Eventually these personal attacks are going to get someone suspended.  

I think we're safe. We're only calling folks racists

[Dill]

(07-16-2019, 04:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: Enough with the personal attacks.

I stated my case for why *I* do not feel I am a victim of racism ever and that personally I don't see how a white person can feel that way.  That doesn't make it a law you must follow.

What does MAGA mean?

Partially disagree with you here.

1. Identifying racist behavior and statements in political actors and news events ought to be possible on a politics message board as this purports to be. I.e., "racism," whether it exists or does not, ought to be discussable. But I agree it is rather different when one starts calling fellow posters "racist."

2. Still, I would say even that is not necessarily a personal attack if there is some fit between a poster's statement and at least an ostensible definition of racism--and the poster/accuser can explain the fit and defend the definition.  That would also mean, however, explaining/defending criteria of racism, going well beyond mere accusation.

3. Where people won't or maybe can't manage definitions, but continue to throw around the term "racism," then I agree that amounts to no more than personal attack.  The usual pattern is, a poster on the MB identifies racist behavior/statements in someone in the news, then is in turn called "racist" by someone else on the MB in a (merely rhetorical) reversal of charges, followed by insistence that the poster talking about someone off the MB is now a "hypocrite" or "the real racist." Because he said "race" or some such. 

Perhaps the critique of people in the news makes people on the MB who hold similar values/beliefs/politics feel personally attacked, so they attack the attacker?  Since race issues and, yes, racism continue to be a driver of current US politics, and since most of those identifying the "real racists" don't truck much in definition or research, the phenomenon is likely to continue if people keep posting articles reporting on race issues. LOL So it will be your own fault, Dino, if in the future you post a Trump/MAGA outrage, link it to the R-word and some one "calls you out."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-16-2019, 05:37 PM)Dill Wrote: Partially disagree with you here.

1. Identifying racist behavior and statements in political actors and news events ought to be possible on a politics message board as this purports to be. I.e., "racism," whether it exists or does not, ought to be discussable.

I completely agree.

Quote:But I agree it is rather different when one starts calling fellow posters "racist."

Only if they aren't actually engaging in racist behavior.

Quote:2. Still, I would say even that is not necessarily a personal attack if there is some fit between a poster's statement and at least an ostensible definition of racism--and the poster/accuser can explain the fit and defend the definition.  That would also mean, however, explaining/defending criteria of racism, going well beyond mere accusation.

Also agreed.

Quote:3. Where people won't or maybe can't manage definitions, but continue to throw around the term "racism," then I agree that amounts to no more than personal attack.  The usual pattern is, a poster on the MB identifies racist behavior/statements in someone in the news, then is in turn called "racist" by someone else on the MB in a (merely rhetorical) reversal of charges, followed by insistence that the poster talking about someone off the MB is now a "hypocrite" or "the real racist." Because he said "race" or some such. 

Perhaps.  If only we had specific examples of someone making a negative statement about an entire ethnicity and gender.  Or maybe someone posting a picture full of negative racist stereotypes?  I'm sure you'd agree if a poster was engaged in this type of behavior then labeling their behavior as racist, much like Tucker Carlson's, would be entirely appropriate.  Right?

Quote:Perhaps the critique of people in the news makes people on the MB who hold similar values/beliefs/politics feel personally attacked, so they attack the attacker?  Since race issues and, yes, racism continue to be a driver of current US politics, and since most of those identifying the "real racists" don't truck much in definition or research, the phenomenon is likely to continue if people keep posting articles reporting on race issues. LOL  So it will be your own fault, Dino, if in the future you post a Trump/MAGA outrage, link it to the R-word and some one "calls you out."

Maybe.  Or perhaps people actually engaged in racist behavior, specific examples of which were called out as they occurred, and said people refuse to acknowledge their culpability, instead trying to deflect by pontificating about how the other side is the real problem?

What do you, the viewers at home think?

[Dill]

(07-16-2019, 06:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Perhaps.  If only we had specific examples of someone making a negative statement about an entire ethnicity and gender.  Or maybe someone posting a picture full of negative racist stereotypes?  I'm sure you'd agree if a poster was engaged in this type of behavior then labeling their behavior as racist, much like Tucker Carlson's, would be entirely appropriate.  Right?

Maybe.  Or perhaps people actually engaged in racist behavior, specific examples of which were called out as they occurred, and said people refuse to acknowledge their culpability, instead trying to deflect by pontificating about how the other side is the real problem?

What do you, the viewers at home think?

This viewer completely agrees with what you agree with.  As to the rest . . .

The accusatory practice of "calling out" posters is not what I've had in mind in previous posts when speaking of definitions and explanations and examples and citations and other bases of rational argument.

E.g., just pointing to a picture and calling it "full of negative racist stereotypes" doesn't accomplish much.  Is the poster criticizing or endorsing the stereotypes, criticizing or endorsing racism?  If so, how can we tell--are there supplementary comments about vile immigrants of color? Or not? Is recognition of stereotypes part of the point? 

And what counts as "racism" in such determinations? That is especially critical on this message board, where usage ranges from "calling out" anyone who mentions race ("I'm a white person") to reliance on more precise and practicable definitions which have developed over the last 50 years in the work of professional historians and social scientists. One can "call out" statements all day, but if one can't explain why they are racist then it is not clear at all that one has produced and example thereof.  If one calls out enough such "examples," though, someone else might figure what the criteria actually are and articulate them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-16-2019, 08:01 PM)Dill Wrote: This viewer completely agrees with what you agree with.  As to the rest . . .

The accusatory practice of "calling out" posters is not what I've had in mind in previous posts when speaking of definitions and explanations and examples and citations and other bases of rational argument.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to call out racist behavior when I see it. If this makes you uncomfortable I honestly couldn't care less.

Quote:E.g., just pointing to a picture and calling it "full of negative racist stereotypes" doesn't accomplish much.  Is the poster criticizing or endorsing the stereotypes, criticizing or endorsing racism?  If so, how can we tell--are there supplementary comments about vile immigrants of color? Or not? Is recognition of stereotypes part of the point? 

I suppose we can only infer from the poster's history in making such conclusions.  Also, I am a bit mystified why a discussion about your posting a picture of racist stereotypes of white people would suddenly take a left turn and have, "supplementary comments about vile immigrants of color".  Or is this more of your made up "reverse racism" a term that rather illuminates the inherent racism of the user.  Seeing as how racism is denigration of a person, or people, based on their race why would their be a special category that only applies when such behavior is directed at white people?  I was taught that treating someone differently based on their race was... wait for it... racist.

Quote:And what counts as "racism" in such determinations? That is especially critical on this message board, where usage ranges from "calling out" anyone who mentions race ("I'm a white person")

When has anyone done that?

Quote:to reliance on more precise and practicable definitions which have developed over the last 50 years in the work of professional historians and social scientists. One can "call out" statements all day, but if one can't explain why they are racist then it is not clear at all that one has produced and example thereof.  If one calls out enough such "examples," though, someone else might figure what the criteria actually are and articulate them.

I'll make it very simple for you, as this point seems to confuse you.  Making derogatory comments about, posting negative (or even positive for that matter) racial stereotypes in picture form or just generally mocking or treating others as lesser than by dint of their race (think of Dino's mocking "Won't someone please think of the white people" gif) is racism.  Stick to that, exceedingly simple, set of rules and you won't go wrong. 

[Dill]

(07-15-2019, 05:05 PM)jj22 Wrote: I've never heard eating fried chicken being a white stereotype so I wasn't sure what was being referenced.

The meme looks like a difference in class to me.

But both look happy unlike some of the hurtful minority stereotypes (Michelle Obama the monkey was a favorite one of Republicans).

Google some black and minority stereotypes memes to see how different it is then memes about class difference.

If you are referring to post #2, the class theme will get you farther than reverse racism, in my view.

The point about the fried chicken in the second painting is neither that it's fried nor that it's chicken, but rather that this cheaply acquired fast food replaces the traditional large Thanksgiving dinner lovingly created by someone's mother or grandmother, usually over a course of days, often with help from aunts and sisters and daughters to whom the tradition was passed down. Beer cans replace water glasses, trash the side dishes. People wear hats at the table and grandma has a butt in her mouth. etc.

When juxtaposed to Rockwell's famous rendition of this American family tradition, the (intentional) contrast is one of evacuated value.  From this point, one might begin correlating each painting, and the contrast, to the MAGA question. When did people think America was great and why do they think it WAS great? As in not great now.  Trump might not like either family, but if invited to dinner, which might be least likely to like him, which most?  Then you've got a conversation going about the politics of cultural change.

You could go that direction, or you could claim the Rockwell painting "racist" because Rockwell didn't include any non-whites in his ideal family. And whoever posted the picture must be racist too. I.e., posting a Rockwell painting of a white family would then be an example of racism that someone should call out.  But that's not really a conversation about the politics of cultural/political change.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-16-2019, 08:37 PM)Dill Wrote: If you are referring to post #2, the class theme will get you farther than reverse racism, in my view.

Yeah, no such thing as reverse racism.  Only a racist would think there is.

Quote:The point about the fried chicken in the second painting is neither that it's fried nor that it's chicken, but rather that this cheaply acquired fast food replaces the traditional large Thanksgiving dinner lovingly created by someone's mother or grandmother, usually over a course of days, often with help from aunts and sisters and daughters to whom the tradition was passed down. Beer cans replace water glasses, trash the side dishes. People wear hats at the table and grandma has a butt in her mouth. etc.

When juxtaposed to Rockwell's famous rendition of this American family tradition, the (intentional) contrast is one of evacuated value.  From this point, one might begin correlating each painting. and the contrast, to the MAGA question. When did people think America was great and why do they think it WAS great? As in not great now.  Trump might not like either family, but if invited to dinner, which might be least likely to like him, which most?  Then you've got a conversation going about the politics of cultural change.

You could go that direction, or you could claim the Rockwell painting "racist" because Rockwell didn't include any non-whites in his ideal family. And whoever posted the picture must be racist too. I.e., posting a Rockwell painting of a white family would then be an example of racism that someone should call out.  But that's not really a conversation about the politics of cultural/political change.  

Quite sincerely, if you honestly believe this steaming pile of self justifying horse manure then I can see why conversations with you tend to get tedious and circuitous.  Pontification defined.

[Dill]

(07-16-2019, 08:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm sorry, but I'm going to call out racist behavior when I see it. If this makes you uncomfortable I honestly couldn't care less.

I suppose we can only infer from the poster's history in making such conclusions.  Also, I am a bit mystified why a discussion about your posting a picture of racist stereotypes of white people would suddenly take a left turn and have, "supplementary comments about vile immigrants of color".  Or is this more of your made up "reverse racism" a term that rather illuminates the inherent racism of the user.  Seeing as how racism is denigration of a person, or people, based on their race why would their be a special category that only applies when such behavior is directed at white people?  I was taught that treating someone differently based on their race was... wait for it... racist.

LOL I get it. No one's going to stop you from "calling out racism."  My concern is to get you to demonstrate what you are calling out. It does make me "uncomfortable" when you go around calling other MB members racist but can't be troubled to account for your special sight.

My point about comments added to a picture, or not, was to indicate how context is an important feature of interpretation. Posting a picture of white people is not . . . wait for it . . . inherently racist.  I didn't make up the term "reverse racism," which I agree doesn't exist. It does refer to a kind of behavior which does exist, though, and has been studied, measured and mapped for for several decades now.  And I see no problem with using a poster's past history to decode a present post. Otherwise how would people recognize my parodies for parodies. But you and I see a very different "history" in Dino's past posts for example, one which leads you to egregiously misread them (example below).

There would be a "special category" that only applies when such behavior is directed at white people in a country where white people have traditionally dominated non-white people, in law and through institutions.  Could be a special category for (non-white) Japanese in Japan, where a transplanted racial criteria have been operative in policy since the Meiji restoration. You've not looked into this, read any definitions, research and yet your heels are all dug in?

(07-16-2019, 08:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll make it very simple for you, as this point seems to confuse you.  Making derogatory comments about, posting negative (or even positive for that matter) racial stereotypes in picture form or just generally mocking or treating others as lesser than by dint of their race (think of Dino's mocking "Won't someone please think of the white people" gif) is racism.  Stick to that, exceedingly simple, set of rules and you won't go wrong. 

Making derogatory comments or "mocking and treating others as lesser" is bad when targeted at race. But you don't mind denigrating or mocking or otherwise treating as "lesser" the people on this MB when they disagree with you?

This leads us to a problem with your "exceedingly simple set of rules":

The example of Dino's gif isn't exceedingly simple. You call him a "racist" for no good reason that I can see. He posts a gif mocking white people who complain they are persecuted as a race by those cruel others--i.e., who complain about reverse racism. That is not mocking "the white race" or treating any race as lesser or whatever. Nor is there a "racial stereotype" involved. It is just a cartoon picture mocking a subset of whiners who define themselves as racial victims in a country where they never have been, and at at time when many white Americans believe they are anyway.  

So NOT racism. In fact the opposite. 

And so you went wrong applying your exceeding simple set of rules to Dino's gif to produce an example of racism.  "White" plus "race" plus Dino does not automatically equate to racism.

[*bfine32*]

(07-16-2019, 09:36 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL I get it. No one's going to stop you from "calling out racism."  My concern is to get you to demonstrate what you are calling out. It does make me "uncomfortable" when you go around calling other MB members racist but can't be troubled to account for your special sight.

My point about comments added to a picture, or not, was to indicate how context is an important feature of interpretation. Posting a picture of white people is not . . . wait for it . . . inherently racist.  I didn't make up the term "reverse racism," which I agree doesn't exist. It does refer to a kind of behavior which does exist, though, and has been studied, measured and mapped for for several decades now.  And I see no problem with using a poster's past history to decode a present post. Otherwise how would people recognize my parodies for parodies. But you and I see a very different "history" in Dino's past posts for example, one which leads you to egregiously misread them (example below).

There would be a "special category" that only applies when such behavior is directed at white people in a country where white people have traditionally dominated non-white people, in law and through institutions.  Could be a special category for (non-white) Japanese in Japan, where a transplanted racial criteria have been operative in policy since the Meiji restoration. You've not looked into this, read any definitions, research and yet your heels are all dug in?


Making derogatory comments or "mocking and treating others as lesser" is bad when targeted at race. But you don't mind denigrating or mocking or otherwise treating as "lesser" the people on this MB when they disagree with you?

This leads us to a problem with your "exceedingly simple set of rules":

The example of Dino's gif isn't exceedingly simple. You call him a "racist" for no good reason that I can see. He posts a gif mocking white people who complain they are persecuted as a race by those cruel others--i.e., who complain about reverse racism. That is not mocking "the white race" or treating any race as lesser or whatever. Nor is there a "racial stereotype" involved. It is just a cartoon picture mocking a subset of whiners who define themselves as racial victims in a country where they never have been, and at at time when many white Americans believe they are anyway.  

So NOT racism. In fact the opposite. 

And so you went wrong applying your exceeding simple set of rules to Dino's gif to produce an example of racism.  "White" plus "race" plus Dino does not automatically equate to racism.

The rest was a whole lot of "the racism I detest is worse than the racism I support", but I felt compelled to address the bolded:

EVERYONE in this forum at one time or another has taken a shot at another forum member (you reading this that is currently saying "not me"; yeah you too). The difference is folks in this forum can defend themselves. 

There was a former member of the forum (who knows he may have been an alt) but he never had an initial cross word for anyone in this forum; however, he would slur populations. This dynamic caused other members of this forum to slur both him and his family. As expected he's eventually retaliate and get suspended. 

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-16-2019, 09:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The rest was a whole lot of "the racism I detest is worse than the racism I support", but I felt compelled to address the bolded:

Well and succinctly put.

Quote:EVERYONE in this forum at one time or another has taken a shot at another forum member (you reading this that is currently saying "not me"; yeah you too). The difference is folks in this forum can defend themselves. 

I have to say, in my defense, I never engaged in personal attacks.  I engaged in reverse personal attacks

Quote:There was a former member of the forum (who knows he may have been an alt) but he never had an initial cross word for anyone in this forum; however, he would slur populations. This dynamic caused other members of this forum to slur both him and his family. As expected he's eventually retaliate and get suspended. 

As much as I disliked the poster you refer to, I can't disagree with this statement.  I recall a certain defense lawyer offering to have sex with this poster's daughters.  Way beyond the pale.

[Dill]

(07-16-2019, 09:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There was a former member of the forum (who knows he may have been an alt) but he never had an initial cross word for anyone in this forum; however, he would slur populations. This dynamic caused other members of this forum to slur both him and his family. As expected he's eventually retaliate and get suspended. 

I knew a guy like that. I got along well with him over all, as the record shows.

He was a man of his word, too. Wish he were still here. He wasn't an "alt." Just a Trump supporter.

If we are speaking of the same guy, the cruelty of many comments directed at him was unnecessary and despicable.
But how does his absence figure into this thread or the content of my post?

[Dill]

(07-16-2019, 09:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The rest was a whole lot of "the racism I detest is worse than the racism I support", but I felt compelled to address the bolded:

I don't see any "racism I support."  Is that what you mean by "taking a shot"?

[*bfine32*]

(07-17-2019, 12:04 AM)Dill Wrote: I knew a guy like that. I got along well with him over all, as the record shows.

He was a man of his word, too. Wish he were still here. He wasn't an "alt." Just a Trump supporter.

If we are speaking of the same guy, the cruelty of many comments directed at him was unnecessary and despicable.
But how does his absence figure into this thread or the content of my post?

I thought I made it obvious when I bolded the part about you "taking a shot" at SSF attacking a forum member while the person you were defending was only "taking a shot" at a larger population

(07-17-2019, 12:08 AM)Dill Wrote: I don't see any "racism I support."  Is that what you mean by "taking a shot"?

Don't feel bad; most don't see the racism they support. 

[Dill]

(07-17-2019, 12:25 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I thought I made it obvious when I bolded the part about you "taking a shot" at SSF attacking a forum member while the person you were defending was only "taking a shot" at a larger population

Well no, nothing is obvious here. I was critical of SSF for repeating unsupported charges of racism against a board member. That implies a banned poster, whom I got along with?

(07-17-2019, 12:25 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Don't feel bad; most don't see the racism they support. 

This sounds a bit passive aggressive. You appear to claim I support racism; but won't bother to explain, or say where or why or how.

You've heard me arguing that people ought not to toss the term "racism" around without defining and supporting with examples.
Is your response to just continue that?

Has someone called you "racist" on the MB at some point?

[Dill]

(07-16-2019, 08:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, no such thing as reverse racism.  Only a racist would think there is.

Quite sincerely, if you honestly believe this steaming pile of self justifying horse manure then I can see why conversations with you tend to get tedious and circuitous.  Pontification defined.

1. Perhaps we agree on the connection between racist thinking and reverse racism.  Difficult to tell from mere assertion though.

2. When you disagree with someone's statements, why are you unable to select at least some statements and explain why they are "horse manure" or "pontification"?   Absent that, it just seems you are describing how such statements make you feel because you can't address them directly. But you present description of your feelings as if they were factual descriptions of what you are reading.
Why do you substitute insult for explanation/argument? More on that below.

(07-16-2019, 11:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to say, in my defense, I never engaged in personal attacks.  I engaged in reverse personal attacks

Well that makes it sound like you are only "responding" to others attacks. And as if that were ok.
But thus "reverse" claim doesn't fit your posting history; e.g., recall your entrance to "Trump's new Sec. of Labor has some baggage..." Post #5

(11-28-2018, 08:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm finding the ignorance in this thread amusing.  You think Acosta made this decision all by his lonesome?  You think he didn't have superiors who were shoulder deep in his keister during his handling this case?  A huge high profile case like this and you think this was Acosta's decision?  Laughable.

What was "reverse" about this insult, your first post on the thread? Who was attacking you?
Is it possible that you often "feel" personally attacked when people question or counter argue your posts, even though you are not being personally attacked? 

I ask because your responses to my posts are often abuzz with unnecessary negative comments about my personality, character and intelligence. I.e., personal attacks. But these are not "reverse" attacks, just attacks.

E.g., go to the thread "More Tariffs paid by consumers" and look at my posts #54, 55, responses to your post #44. No personal attack there whatsoever. The focus is wholly on China and foreign policy.
Then look at your responding post #57, where you term my assessment of China "intellectually dishonest" and "insanely oversimplistic." My behavior is "inane" and I'm told my "myopic shortsightedness is not a virtue."  No actual refutation of any point I made.  My character has been substituted for the topic. E.g., when I suggest concerted diplomacy to could reign in some of China's foreign policy excesses, you don't say why that won't work, just that I am "striving hard" to "defend odious regimes."  When I note the personal character of your response, you say I am "too sensitive." The problem is in me, not your behavior. 

Seems like you were on task for a couple posts, then back to the same old same old--and that same old is not "reverse personal attack." Just personal attack.

When you assess your own recorded history on this list, you can't deny the multitude of nasty personal comments distributed to many people (not just the three-headed sock puppet). The question is why must you frame them as "reverse personal attacks"? As if they were all just self defense and  justified.

[GMDino]

That was a nice trip down memory lane.

What does MAGA mean?

Other than accusing people of being racist just to defend a racist statement made by Trump?

I mean there are multiple pages of people defending each and everything the Trump admin has done and members of it..all while saying they aren't defending Trump but rather accusing people on the board of being racist.

Unless the question of what MAGA means can be answered maybe this thread should go away before it gets "personal".

[GMDino]

(07-17-2019, 02:29 AM)Dill Wrote: 1. Perhaps we agree on the connection between racist thinking and reverse racism.  Difficult to tell from mere assertion though.

2. When you disagree with someone's statements, why are you unable to select at least some statements and explain why they are "horse manure" or "pontification"?   Absent that, it just seems you are describing how such statements make you feel because you can't address them directly. But you present description of your feelings as if they were factual descriptions of what you are reading.
Why do you substitute insult for explanation/argument? More on that below.

Well that makes it sound like you are only "responding" to others attacks. And as if that were ok.
But thus "reverse" claim doesn't fit your posting history; e.g., recall your entrance to "Trump's new Sec. of Labor has some baggage..." Post #5

What was "reverse" about this insult, your first post on the thread? Who was attacking you?
Is it possible that you often "feel" personally attacked when people question or counter argue your posts, even though you are not being personally attacked? 

I ask because your responses to my posts are often abuzz with unnecessary negative comments about my personality, character and intelligence. I.e., personal attacks. But these are not "reverse" attacks, just attacks.

E.g., go to the thread "More Tariffs paid by consumers" and look at my posts #54, 55, responses to your post #44. No personal attack there whatsoever. The focus is wholly on China and foreign policy.
Then look at your responding post #57, where you term my assessment of China "intellectually dishonest" and "insanely oversimplistic." My behavior is "inane" and I'm told my "myopic shortsightedness is not a virtue."  No actual refutation of any point I made.  My character has been substituted for the topic. E.g., when I suggest concerted diplomacy to could reign in some of China's foreign policy excesses, you don't say why that won't work, just that I am "striving hard" to "defend odious regimes."  When I note the personal character of your response, you say I am "too sensitive." The problem is in me, not your behavior. 

Seems like you were on task for a couple posts, then back to the same old same old--and that same old is not "reverse personal attack." Just personal attack.

When you assess your own recorded history on this list, you can't deny the multitude of nasty personal comments distributed to many people (not just the three-headed sock puppet). The question is why must you frame them as "reverse personal attacks"? As if they were all just self defense and  justified.

"reverse personal attacks" is just SSF's cute way of saying there is no "reverse racism"...only racism since he doesn't like the phrase "reverse racism".

The rest is personal attacks...you get numb to it after awhile. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-17-2019, 02:00 AM)Dill Wrote: Well no, nothing is obvious here. I was critical of SSF for repeating unsupported charges of racism against a board member. That implies a banned poster, whom I got along with?


This sounds a bit passive aggressive. You appear to claim I support racism; but won't bother to explain, or say where or why or how.

You've heard me arguing that people ought not to toss the term "racism" around without defining and supporting with examples.
Is your response to just continue that?

Has someone called you "racist" on the MB at some point?

Examples have been provided. For instance I've used the racism supported in the altered meme of the family having dinner, but like I said you apparently don't see it.

Sure. One instance that comes to mind is when I suggested some Hispanics identify as white. The person who made the assertion had 0 idea that his condemning that assertion was the true sign of racist tendencies, but like I said: he couldn't see it.

WTS, I'm done with this back and forth before I become the first person in the history of this forum to get banned for using the term Racist. I'm simply suggesting someone may have racist tendencies that they are blind to. It's a dynamic known as Jahari's Window.