quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

'Crœsus' is a hybrid bastardisation comparable in barbarity to the word 'television'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm clearly a dumb Brit, but the linked post doesn't accuse anyone of racism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Presumably 'uppity' is a reference to an uppity negro, with ideas above his station, &c.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
Presumably 'uppity' is a reference to an uppity negro, with ideas above his station, &c.

---

I've never thought of "uppity" as being specific to any race? Surely anyone can be uppity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie jon:
By the way there is a difference between Classism and racism. I would say classifying a classist slur as racist is a sign of racism.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:
Depends on the context. In the UK, it's purely a piece of classist abuse. In the US, it comes with a whole load of additional baggage. Particularly if a white person is using it about a black person. (See here). Racist and classist!

Tubbs

---

What Tubbs said. Hereabouts, it's classist abuse with the implication of racism when directed against a minority; it has roots in the South of a generation or so ago when blacks seen as acting above their station (in other words, like whites) were seen as being/called "uppity".

TL;DR - if you called a black person "uppity" around here, you'd likely get punched in the mouth.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Another word I use in ignorant innocence - I use 'uppity' like a mild version of 'arrogant'.

Ho hum, pig's bum


 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm clearly a dumb Brit, but the linked post doesn't accuse anyone of racism? I even went and read the thread (well, some of the more "recent"* posts anyway) to anything racist and find myself none the wiser.

Yours,
Confused of Old Blighty.

 

* relatively speaking. Some were a few months old, but that's what happens when someone posts an inane comment solely for the purpose of reviving a thread. Which is even more bizarre when one does that acknowledging that the thread is lame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm going with troll.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm going with troll.

---

Gee, why doesn't it surprise me that Beeswax Altar is defending racism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm going with troll.

---

Gee, why doesn't it surprise me that Beeswax Altar is defending racism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Allegations of racism aside, I concur with BA here. Crœsos has shown, every time I've been involved in a discussion with him, to only be interested in blowing smoke, not discussing/debating in good faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Allegations of racism aside, I concur with BA here. Crœsos has shown, every time I've been involved in a discussion with him, to only be interested in blowing smoke, not discussing/debating in good faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Allegations of racism aside, I concur with BA here. Crœsos has shown, every time I've been involved in a discussion with him, to only be interested in blowing smoke, not discussing/debating in good faith.

---

An example or two might help. My own experience with Crœsos is that he enters his frays well-supplied with facts, figures, and links to support whatever position he's taken. Or is that what you mean by "blowing smoke?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Third, this issue does not just arise in a racial context. I see it everywhere. I've seen it in my own city. There is a simple reasoning process that I see repeatedly: that someone died, and the death was tragic, so therefore the death must be someone's fault.

This reasoning process is rarely articulated, but it is present over and over again. "Fault" isn't even always criminal. Sometimes it's about suing. Just last week, our High Court decided a case where a mentally ill man killed his friend after being discharged from hospital, and the deceased's relatives were trying to sue the hospital. They lost. The hospital did not owe the kind of duty necessary for the suit to be successful.

It is entirely possible for someone to be responsible for a senseless, tragic death. But that responsibility requires proof. It is also entirely possible for a senseless, tragic death to occur for which no particular person is to blame, or for which the dead person is just as much to blame as anyone else. The reason I get so uncomfortable about these cases is that the latter possibilities never seem to be where the majority opinion ends up. The finger always points somewhere.

---

Or in shorter version: Why do these unarmed black men keep shooting themselves?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Another word I use in ignorant innocence - I use 'uppity' like a mild version of 'arrogant'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Another word I use in ignorant innocence - I use 'uppity' like a mild version of 'arrogant'.

---

Here in the UK I think the associations of the word for most people are someone wearing filthy rich and wearing a top hat and monocle, and shaped like a kidney bean. Although Mr Uppity is dark brown.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which is even more bizarre when one does that acknowledging that the thread is lame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Allegations of racism aside, I concur with BA here. Crœsos has shown, every time I've been involved in a discussion with him, to only be interested in blowing smoke, not discussing/debating in good faith.

---

An example or two might help. My own experience with Crœsos is that he enters his frays well-supplied with facts, figures, and links to support whatever position he's taken. Or is that what you mean by "blowing smoke?"

---

Pick any thread having anything to do with gun control, for starters.

goperryrevs' experience (as illustrated by the quote he provided) has been mine as well - nothing but misrepresentations and innuendo from Crœsos. If one can't debate without those, it really doesn't matter if one has facts and figures, does it?
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Well now. I spend a pleasant, if brisk, afternoon in my mum's garden pruning bushes and raking leaves, and wondering where all the Hellions had gone.

Merry Christmas, everyone.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Ok , I can believe Tubbs would use the word "uppity" in innocence. Same with Boogie. But someone who spends as much time discussing race and politics as Croesos does? i have a much harder time believing he didn't know it was a loaded word.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Oh, I am certain Crœsos used it in the manner represented in the OP.
I would defend moron by saying he was as likely being a hypocritical, conservative tool as he was being a racist tool.

ETA: And I would defend Crœsos by saying that many hypocritical, conservative tools are also racist tools. Lot of admix in there.

[ 12. December 2014, 16:45: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Well, any of you (including moron) can Styx us Purg Hosts for missing a possible C3 offence by play on words.

(With apologies to HellHosts for a general Hostly point).
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Yeah they're both tools. But Moron puts a bug pretty far up my ass, so this was a good opportunity to test my objectivity.
 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
Backatcha Doc.

(note to self: 'moron: The Armed Hypocritical Conservative Barbarian Tool' has potential)

Nod to Kelly for the mental image.

Still waiting for Cheechus.
 

---

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:

Still waiting for Cheechus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm going with troll.

---

Gee, why doesn't it surprise me that Beeswax Altar is defending racism?

---

Allegations of racism aside, I concur with BA here. Crœsos has shown, every time I've been involved in a discussion with him, to only be interested in blowing smoke, not discussing/debating in good faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm going with troll.

---

Gee, why doesn't it surprise me that Beeswax Altar is defending racism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Allegations of racism aside, I concur with BA here. Crœsos has shown, every time I've been involved in a discussion with him, to only be interested in blowing smoke, not discussing/debating in good faith.

---

An example or two might help. My own experience with Crœsos is that he enters his frays well-supplied with facts, figures, and links to support whatever position he's taken. Or is that what you mean by "blowing smoke?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
My own view is that he is an pain in the arse*, but he's a pain in the arse who cares about shit like truth and justice so I tend to regard him as making an actual contribution and not wasting bandwidth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Allegations of racism aside, I concur with BA here. Crœsos has shown, every time I've been involved in a discussion with him, to only be interested in blowing smoke, not discussing/debating in good faith.

---

An example or two might help. My own experience with Crœsos is that he enters his frays well-supplied with facts, figures, and links to support whatever position he's taken. Or is that what you mean by "blowing smoke?"

---

He also enters with an extraordinary ability to argue that grey is black.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Uppity was often used as an adjective to describe an African-American (insert the N-word) who didn't "know their place."

So, Croesus was trying to shut down debate by accusing moron of racism. Croesus doesn't want a good faith debate over anything because he's a troll. The other option is that Croesus has an extraordinary inability to comprehend the meaning of sentences written by people who disagree with him. I'm going with troll.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
In fact, I've just realised something.

A couple of days on an Australian news site, I wrote a comment expressing my frustration about how some posters would complete ignore any nuance or distinction in their quest to divide everybody into 2 teams and score points. And the stupidity of the logic that says that if you criticise a person on one 'team', you MUST be on the other 'team'.

It's just hit me. The subject of this Hellcall is the chief proponent of this mindset on the Ship. And I bloody hate it. Even though I'm frequently nearer to being on his 'team' than not. Crœsos is the worst kind of fool, a terribly smart one that uses his intelligence in an utterly dumb way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm going with troll.

---

Gee, why doesn't it surprise me that Beeswax Altar is defending racism?

---

Wait, calling Croesus a troll counts as defending racism now?

---

quote:

---

Have you ever tried to disagree with him?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Callan:
My own view is that he is an pain in the arse*, but he's a pain in the arse who cares about shit like truth and justice so I tend to regard him as making an actual contribution and not wasting bandwidth.

---

IME people who care about shit like truth and justice don't deliberately misinterpret others in a petty attempt to score emotional manipulation points and "win" on a superficial level.

YMMV

(AFAICT, you don't do that, but Croesus certainly does. Either that or he really is stupid but highly trained.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Crœsos is the worst kind of fool, a terribly smart one that uses his intelligence in an utterly dumb way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I struggle a bit to understand how anyone could fail to see that post in its context as anything other than a snide insinuation of racism against moron.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
It may be different outside the US, but within these borders, claiming “I’m not a racist” (no “but” intended or implied here) is pretty much a knee-jerk response to any intimation by anyone that one is in fact a racist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Odd. I think Croesos doesn't assume good faith, which is why he probes a lot. I suppose he may polarise discussions and seek to illuminate the fallacies as he sees them of opposing views, but he's far from being the only one who does that. There is not much consensus-building in Purg.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
]I don't think it's an issue whether Croesus probes and seeks to expose fallacies. He does these things which, as you say, others do also.

What is at issue is whether he does so constructively, or is only here to score cheap points. Now and again, I reckon he does the latter, but he's not alone in that either, and once one has established a reputation for cheapshots, people will scroll past.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
I dunno.

It may be different outside the US, but within these borders, claiming “I’m not a racist” (no “but” intended or implied here) is pretty much a knee-jerk response to any intimation by anyone that one is in fact a racist. (Granted, there are some people/groups who will proudly advance racist notions – neo-Nazis, troglodytes, etc.) Your mainstream citizen, though, knows that embracing racism Is Wrong, and will deny committing any such thought-crime.

Here’s the thing, though: a pretty deep, sharp divide continues to exist between and among US people, racially speaking. The divide is economic, cultural, educational, political, occupational, experiential, and on and on. White privilege actually exists (though it’s beginning to erode, much to the dismayed surprise of many white people, who are only just beginning to notice this). Many people simply do not experience ordinary everyday life in ways that closely resemble each other. People do not, as our ideals promise us, all have the same opportunities; the array of “choices” available to various people is just not the same. People cannot (and do not) make the same set of assumptions about the world when they live in high-crime inner-city neighborhoods run by gangs, versus isolated Native American reservations situated on land nobody else wants, versus nice, quiet suburbs with two-car garages and special SAT prep classes.

Most of us form our ideas about “the world” based on our own experience, and one result can be unconscious racism. No, white people are not running around lynching black people on any regular basis, or even necessarily badmouthing members of non-white groups. But when the one lone black kid in your son’s Ivory Soap high school class makes the team and your son doesn’t, isn’t it tempting to wonder if it’s due to affirmative action or even reverse racism rather than maybe the other kid has more basketball chops than your son does? When one of the only 3 Latinas (Asians, African-Americans, fill-in-as-appropriate) in your daughter’s class gets into Harvard and your daughter doesn’t, do similar questions arise? When the black female job candidate gets the promotion and you, a white male, don’t, do you wonder?

Is it racist to entertain such questions? How many whites find such questions arising for them? No white person with sense will ask such questions out loud; does that mean they’re not racist? I freely admit to being personally flummoxed by this stuff. When some white person says things like this to me privately, assuming I’m on the same page they are because I’m of the same race – itself a racist assumption – do I know how to respond? Do I always respond in a racist, or perhaps non-racist, way?

I rarely agree with moron on anything. I don’t know if he’s a racist. He posts things sometimes that strike me as coming from a position of white privilege. It’s possible Croesos is merely readier than I am to point out what he sincerely believes to be (and might actually be, but how do I know?) unconscious racism. There’s a fair amount of that infection going around these United States.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
With regard to assorted "isms," Croesos may be operating from the same basic assumption which I do: US culture has "ism-itis" as part of its DNA. As products of our culture, almost none of us can escape being "trained" into "isms," including racism (which also can include the kind of self-hatred which racism can induce). It therefore takes long, hard, deep work, including a lot of self-examination, to counteract.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Because, I mean, moron *IS* a racist, or at least says myriad racist things and defends them to the hilt

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
'unconscious racism' is rich. Could there be a more meaningless term?

And 'white privilege' is also rich. I've paid more dues than most.

And I've been discriminated against in the workplace solely because I'm a white male. It's one of the reasons I walked away from six figures over a decade ago.

And never looked back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Poor little rich man.

---

I think rich little poor man is closer to the reality.

I reckon my net worth is equivalent or less than most people who post here.


On a tangent: is the desire to bring someone down to some level an inherently British thing?


Here, Bessie Bessie, here's your stall.


 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Poor little rich man.

---

I think rich little poor man is closer to the reality.

I reckon my net worth is equivalent or less than most people who post here.


On a tangent: is the desire to bring someone down to some level an inherently British thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
And I've been discriminated against in the workplace solely because I'm a white male. It's one of the reasons I walked away from six figures over a decade ago.

---

Are you sure it's because you're a white male?

Are you sure it's not because you act IRL anything like you act here?

Personally, I've never met a white male claiming discrimination that wasn't just pissed off because the playing field had just been leveled, and I'm damned sick and tired of conservatives in this country complaining that the most disadvantaged demographic is white, straight men.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I would dearly love to go back to Seattle and find that young black guy who came up to me on the street, and then thanked me for engaging in conversation with him rather than avoiding him for being black, to tell him just how much of a racist I am.

---

quote:

---

I'll say it again: thoroughly racist. It is the perfect illustration of everything about racism: stereotyping, ignoring individual differences, caricatures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
[qb]I would dearly love to go back to Seattle and find that young black guy who came up to me on the street, and then thanked me for engaging in conversation with him rather than avoiding him for being black, to tell him just how much of a racist I am.

---

Dude, I was nice to a black guy once so I'm not a racist? Seriously?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
What racism is chiefly about is POWER. Stereotyping, ignoring individual differences, and caricatures are part of prejudice. But there's a lot more to racism than prejudice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think we (shipmates) tend to go easy on people who take cheap shots when they are supporting our opinion. I think some folk definitely use this dynamic to see how far they can go with the cheap shots. Haven't had enough interaction with Croesos to know if he is one of these folk, but these folk wouldn't be able to get away with the cheap shots if we didn't let them. (and understand I am talking about group dynamics, not hosting. Just for the record.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Barnabas, I think MT is making the often-made point that prejudice without power is often not described as racism because it doesn't do any harm. It is only once you have power that you can start to be racist. Unimplemented racism is in tree-falling-with-no-one-to-hear territory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I would dearly love to go back to Seattle and find that young black guy who came up to me on the street, and then thanked me for engaging in conversation with him rather than avoiding him for being black, to tell him just how much of a racist I am.

---

Dude, I was nice to a black guy once so I'm not a racist? Seriously?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'll say it again: thoroughly racist. It is the perfect illustration of everything about racism: stereotyping, ignoring individual differences, caricatures.

---

No. What racism is chiefly about is POWER. Stereotyping, ignoring individual differences, and caricatures are part of prejudice. But there's a lot more to racism than prejudice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Barnabas, I think MT is making the often-made point that prejudice without power is often not described as racism because it doesn't do any harm. It is only once you have power that you can start to be racist. Unimplemented racism is in tree-falling-with-no-one-to-hear territory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But I disagree. Racism is prejudice based on perceived race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

And perhaps because we are often on the same side.
Still not convinced that he is a troll. Keeping always in mind, that people are rarely either good or bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But I disagree. Racism is prejudice based on perceived race.

---

Well there are different definitions and one is free to disagree. I think prejudice alone fits with a dictionary definition but not with legal definitions or many sociological definitions. Which is fine, one can hold varying definitions, but MT's definition is not unusual either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And I tend to have more respect for people who make that effort.

---

damn
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Girl, you call yourself on your own shit on a regular basis. That makes you the Albert Schweitzer of the internet.
 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
Dear mt

I also wanted to say something about soc

Holy Shit I just saw a black person!

This post will have to wait as I need to go oppress them because I hate them. More later.
 

---

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
I find it pretty damn odd that there is discussion of whether someone who has been on these boards for years is a troll. We must all be pretty fucking slow on the uptake if it's taken that long for the light to dawn. Pretty much everybody gets snarky from time to time and/or occasionally goes for a cheap shot. A side order of snarkery doth not a troll make.

Most of Croesos' contributions on that thread look pretty reasonable. Furthermore, in the context of another poster making racist comments up-thread, the suggestion that "insolence" might be translated as "uppity" seems quite justifiable. I can understand why it pissed moron off but, you know, lie down with dogs and you'll get up with fleas.
 

---

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Regarding Crœsos; I am not at all shocked that conservatards like moron don't like him, and even that more reasonable conservatives also do not. I have viewed him as persistent, and perhaps a little more likely to perceive ill intent in uncertain circumstance. Perhaps because there are issues in which I am prone to that myself.
And perhaps because we are often on the same side.
Still not convinced that he is a troll. Keeping always in mind, that people are rarely either good or bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It always seemed to me that he managed to tread this genius kind of a fine line - the frequency, severity and direction of his snide polarising misinterpretations were always exactly honed that they managed to stay below a lot of people's radar, and the people who he pissed off would be pissed-off-but-not-quite-enough-to-take-it-to-hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It always seemed to me that he managed to tread this genius kind of a fine line - the frequency, severity and direction of his snide polarising misinterpretations were always exactly honed that they managed to stay below a lot of people's radar, and the people who he pissed off would be pissed-off-but-not-quite-enough-to-take-it-to-hell.

---

This. Absolutely. This particular not-actually-that-conservative-thanks Shipmate has experienced low-level irritation for a long time.

Plus, y'know, for the last couple of years it's felt as if someone needed to REALLY piss me off before a Hellhost starting a hellcall would be a good idea. Otherwise it just looks like I'm trying to drum up business.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

And I wouldn't describe myself as conservative. So I don't think it's just about a left/right divide, though I'm sure he's more ruthless with non-liberals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm merely confirming your point that "liberal" is not a synonym for left-wing. I don't exactly have any power to change the name of the party currently in government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't think he's a troll, but I think people who point out how intelligent he is are not helping his case. It's precisely because he's intelligent that we can be reasonably sure the misrepresentations and silly extrapolations are wilful mischief-making, rather than honest misunderstandings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
I see him as having less tolerance for or patience with posters who, like many of us, hold views that aren't necessarily logically consistent with each other. He is pretty aggressive about pointing such inconsistencies out, and does this by attacking a poster's position (and in this case, a poster) rather than questioning or discussing the stance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

The big hits on the Ferguson thread for me have related to the way power may be used in the grand jury process to skew findings. Note that word "may". The assumption that it always happens when police officers' actions are being investigated "because they are police officers, so that would happen wouldn't it", is presumption of guilt, certainty that the "fix" is in. And that's not fair either. Even if it turns out to be true when tested.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
Years ago Eliab of all people called him to hell on my behalf because of how he was posting on a Purgatory thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

The big hits on the Ferguson thread for me have related to the way power may be used in the grand jury process to skew findings. Note that word "may". The assumption that it always happens when police officers' actions are being investigated "because they are police officers, so that would happen wouldn't it", is presumption of guilt, certainty that the "fix" is in. And that's not fair either. Even if it turns out to be true when tested.

---

I do not think it is a presumption of guilt. It is a presumption that self-preservation is the more important factor. The presumption that guilt is irrelevant at the start.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Of course both can be true at once. But a system which cannot be trusted to seek justice first is right to be questioned each and every time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
it can be an easy step from the authority must be monitored to the authority cannot be trusted. But it is not an inevitable one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
I see him as having less tolerance for or patience with posters who, like many of us, hold views that aren't necessarily logically consistent with each other. He is pretty aggressive about pointing such inconsistencies out

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
I find it pretty damn odd that there is discussion of whether someone who has been on these boards for years is a troll. We must all be pretty fucking slow on the uptake if it's taken that long for the light to dawn. Pretty much everybody gets snarky from time to time and/or occasionally goes for a cheap shot. A side order of snarkery doth not a troll make.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
I generally think of him as a holier/more-liberal-than-thou jerk

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
it can be an easy step from the authority must be monitored to the authority cannot be trusted. But it is not an inevitable one.

---

But it's a step that, in your very own words, you have already made. Read your own posts. You said that because the system cannot be trusted, it must be constantly questioned (or monitored).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:


I'd be most interested to test your sense of justice with the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, for example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
I generally think of him as a holier/more-liberal-than-thou jerk

---

Like many posters here, I struggle enormously with the label 'liberal' being anything other than an unalloyed good. If you think he's left-wing, call him a socialist and have done with it - it's a perfectly decent word that actually and accurately describes a political and perhaps a philosophical position.

You describe me as liberal, I say, "thank you". Because what's the alternative?

---

I agree with you, actually. I'd generally self-describe as a moderate liberal, at least by the standards where I live. (Which I realize are not the same everywhere.)

My point was that acting as if one were somehow a "better" liberal than the rest of us is more than a little annoying.


 

---

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
I find it pretty damn odd that there is discussion of whether someone who has been on these boards for years is a troll. We must all be pretty fucking slow on the uptake if it's taken that long for the light to dawn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
I generally think of him as a holier/more-liberal-than-thou jerk

---

Like many posters here, I struggle enormously with the label 'liberal' being anything other than an unalloyed good. If you think he's left-wing, call him a socialist and have done with it - it's a perfectly decent word that actually and accurately describes a political and perhaps a philosophical position.

You describe me as liberal, I say, "thank you". Because what's the alternative?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
My point was that acting as if one were somehow a "better" liberal than the rest of us is more than a little annoying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If 'liberal' means 'let the rich screw the poor' it isn't so good.

---

Perhaps you're confusing it for the word 'bastard' which, while acknowledging its original etymology, when combined with 'Tory' seems to adequately cover the situation.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Deciding whether someone is a troll or not is a bit like deciding whether they are a racist. How many racist acts does it take before one is a racist? We've all done or said things on occasion that could be/ actually are racist in effect or intent. Likewise I'm sure most of us have put something in the occasional post that is designed to needle someone, or misrepresented them a bit for the sake of scoring points or raising a laugh. How many trolling acts does it take before one gets the label troll?

It's all rather too black and white for me.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Wow. Go away for a few days and come back to this tempest in a teapot. Frankly I'm a bit surprised it took nearly three weeks to respond to a one line post, but here we are.

So yes, I was calling out a moron on his less-than-courageous race-baiting. I'm not sure there's a kinder term for claiming black presidents are exceptional exemplars of insolence for doing things that have been previously done by a bunch of white presidents. After six years in office this kind of dog whistle is hardly new to the Obama administration (or even the First Lady), but there's no reason to pretend the morons of the world aren't doing what they're actually doing. They count on everyone else being willing to go along with their conceit.

So yes, I often don't have the patience to assume good faith when I'm confronted with a poster who has demonstrated no reason to make that assumption advancing an argument so transparent I just can't be motivated to pretend.

I look forward to a reply in about a month's time.
 

---

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
Pancho - the difference as I see it is that a troll mostly only goes online to troll - someone who may have a bit of an attitude problem isn't quite the same thing. And I'm not sure I believe in the existence of "subtle, low-level trolling" - that's a bit of an oxymoron IMHO.
 

---

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Pancho - the difference as I see it is that a troll mostly only goes online to troll - someone who may have a bit of an attitude problem isn't quite the same thing. And I'm not sure I believe in the existence of "subtle, low-level trolling" - that's a bit of an oxymoron IMHO.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No system can be trusted to be self-monitoring. That is a reason I posted that quote by Curren.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Justice? No, justice was not served. Does this mean I think Zimmerman should been convicted of murder? No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure there's a kinder term for claiming black presidents are exceptional exemplars of insolence for doing things that have been previously done by a bunch of white presidents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
He said that in his opinion, Obama epitomises the "insolence of office". Which is about people in power, not black people or white people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
He said that in his opinion, Obama epitomises the "insolence of office". Which is about people in power, not black people or white people.

---

Right. For some reason it's Obama who "personifies 'the insolence of office'" to such a greater degree than any of the previous presidents that he's the personification of the phenomenon, despite not notably expanding the powers of the office. He's more insolent than Richard Nixon using his powers to subvert democracy, or FDR with his court packing and internment of American citizens, or John Adams with the Alien and Sedition Acts. It's Obama who's the embodiment of 'the insolence of office'.

Once again, I have to notice that it only seems to be "insolence" depending on who's doing it. I mean, who does the guy think he is? The president or something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
He said that in his opinion, Obama epitomises the "insolence of office". Which is about people in power, not black people or white people.

---

Right. For some reason it's Obama who "personifies 'the insolence of office'" to such a greater degree than any of the previous presidents that he's the personification of the phenomenon, despite not notably expanding the powers of the office. He's more insolent than Richard Nixon using his powers to subvert democracy, or FDR with his court packing and internment of American citizens, or John Adams with the Alien and Sedition Acts. It's Obama who's the embodiment of 'the insolence of office'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Once again, I have to notice that it only seems to be "insolence" depending on who's doing it. I mean, who does the guy think he is? The president or something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
For some reason it's Obama who "personifies 'the insolence of office'" to such a greater degree than any of the previous presidents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
Years ago Eliab of all people called him to hell on my behalf because of how he was posting on a Purgatory thread.

---

Are you sure? I've called a few people to Hell but I don't remember Crœsos being one of them.

Mind you, he fits all the criteria for someone I would call to Hell - someone I think sufficiently interesting and worth engaging with that I'd care enough to complain about perceived misconduct that makes that difficult - so you might be right, but I don't recall it. Are you sure it wasn't someone else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Justice? No, justice was not served. Does this mean I think Zimmerman should been convicted of murder? No.

---

Oh I see. It's that kind of justice. The kind of abstract moralising that expresses unhappiness with the application of centuries-old principles about proof beyond reasonable doubt when they don't get the result your gut wants in a particular case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No system can be trusted to be self-monitoring. That is a reason I posted that quote by Curren.

---

All existing monitoring can be improved and there are processes for looking at that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Why? Because he's a douche.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Justice? No, justice was not served. Does this mean I think Zimmerman should been convicted of murder? No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh I see. It's that kind of justice. The kind of abstract moralising that expresses unhappiness with the application of centuries-old principles about proof beyond reasonable doubt when they don't get the result your gut wants in a particular case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Justice? No, justice was not served. Does this mean I think Zimmerman should been convicted of murder? No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh I see. It's that kind of justice. The kind of abstract moralising that expresses unhappiness with the application of centuries-old principles about proof beyond reasonable doubt when they don't get the result your gut wants in a particular case.

---

See we can all do this straw-man points-scoring thing once in a while. I really don't see how you can get that conclusion from lilBuddha's post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that there is any "justice" to be had in a criminal trial beyond the correct legal verdict is completely kidding themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No. The kind of justice that is applied equally, the kind of justice that does its best for all its citizens, not primarily those with power and resource.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that there is any "justice" to be had in a criminal trial beyond the correct legal verdict is completely kidding themselves.

---

Are you saying that since a criminal trial was held then necessarily justice was done? That there's no room for dissatisfaction with how various aspects of proceedings were done? Is Lord Chief Justice Hewart churning earth in a vortex around his grave?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How about we make educational opportunities equal? How about we truly make job opportunities equal? How we fix the problems which engender crime and lower the chances of escaping poverty?

---

quote:

---

Unless the inequities are fixed, all your solutions are useless and close to blaming the victim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Sorry for the double post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
For some reason it's Obama who "personifies 'the insolence of office'" to such a greater degree than any of the previous presidents.

---

And again, the second half of that sentence is something you've added, which again makes it part of your interpretation. Moron didn't say that Obama personifies the insolence of office to such a greater degree than any of the previous presidents. You've added that. That second part of the sentence is entirely your own creation.

He just said Obama personifies the insolence of office. That's it. Maybe he thinks that Nixon personifies it more? Maybe equally? Who knows? Why not ask him?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How about we make educational opportunities equal? How about we truly make job opportunities equal? How we fix the problems which engender crime and lower the chances of escaping poverty?

---

Absolutely. That would be great. That would involve saying that the racism is in the economic system rather than the police.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
For some reason it's Obama who "personifies 'the insolence of office'" to such a greater degree than any of the previous presidents.

---

And again, the second half of that sentence is something you've added, which again makes it part of your interpretation. Moron didn't say that Obama personifies the insolence of office to such a greater degree than any of the previous presidents. You've added that. That second part of the sentence is entirely your own creation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How about we make educational opportunities equal? How about we truly make job opportunities equal? How we fix the problems which engender crime and lower the chances of escaping poverty?

---

Absolutely. That would be great. That would involve saying that the racism is in the economic system rather than the police.

---

"Rather than?" Why can't it be in both places? In fact, is it really at all likely that the police and criminal justice system would somehow be uniquely immune to racism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
For some reason it's Obama who "personifies 'the insolence of office'" to such a greater degree than any of the previous presidents.

---

And again, the second half of that sentence is something you've added, which again makes it part of your interpretation. Moron didn't say that Obama personifies the insolence of office to such a greater degree than any of the previous presidents. You've added that. That second part of the sentence is entirely your own creation.

---

Yeah, he did. That's what it means to "personify" something. That specific person is an exemplar of the trait to a much greater degree than any other example that comes readily to mind. Given the specific context of "insolence of office" the comparison to previous presidents is a fairly obvious one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I'd like to see Crœsos refrain from taking such cheap shots at people like orfeo who have something to say that deserves to be received in good faith even by people who disagree. It irritates me when he misrepresents comments that he could sensible engage with. moron's stupid line is hardly in the same category, and I'll admit to being quite amused that Crœsos touched a nerve there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yeah, he did. That's what it means to "personify" something. That specific person is an exemplar of the trait to a much greater degree than any other example that comes readily to mind. Given the specific context of "insolence of office" the comparison to previous presidents is a fairly obvious one.

---

Gee. You couldn't have just possibly allowed for the way that people use catchy phrases without thinking them through, or maybe tried clarifying what was meant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Occam's razor. He might be getting away with it because so many of us don't read his posts anymore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
For some reason it's Obama who "personifies 'the insolence of office'" to such a greater degree than any of the previous presidents.

---

And again, the second half of that sentence is something you've added, which again makes it part of your interpretation. Moron didn't say that Obama personifies the insolence of office to such a greater degree than any of the previous presidents. You've added that. That second part of the sentence is entirely your own creation.

---

Yeah, he did. That's what it means to "personify" something. That specific person is an exemplar of the trait to a much greater degree than any other example that comes readily to mind. Given the specific context of "insolence of office" the comparison to previous presidents is a fairly obvious one.

---

quote:

---

To be an embodiment of (a quality, etc.); to exemplify in a typical manner or to a marked degree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Um, no. You're massively overstating your case. The definitions the OED gives for that usage of "personify" don't go nearly as far as that:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, that was a lovely set of assertions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Although there was no explicit comparison with other presidents, in a thread specifically designed for evaluating a presidency, I would have thought such a comparison is implied. After all, on what other terms does one evaluate a President?

---

quote:

---

For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th' oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office[.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Um, no. You're massively overstating your case. The definitions the OED gives for that usage of "personify" don't go nearly as far as that:

---

I think most of the elements are there. It's pretty hard to exemplify without being in some way more of a thing than most other individuals in your class.

---

But then, of course, Croesus claimed something much stronger than that - that moron implicitly but undeniably claimed that Obama was the most egregious example of insolence of the office of POTUS ever. Moron plainly didn't commit himself to that, by any fair reading of his post - even if he meant to.

All this apparent pickiness (mine, that is) is only being brought into play here because Croesus thereby demonstrated one of the very traits for which he's being criticised by several of us on this thread. Apparently without realising it.

[ 16. December 2014, 17:54: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
I want to say again how much I appreciate being allowed to play here. I fully recognize where I am situated talentwise: in over my head. I come here to be improved by my betters.

And as your humble servant (Romans 2.1 is my 'life verse') I've taken many of the criticisms aimed at cheechus/mousethief to be faults of my own. I hope to do better in the future.

This all reminds me of when 'orwell' showed up and called IngoB to Hell. I distinctly recall someone on that thread used the word 'tedious' (I resemble that remark ) about orwell and I think it's applicable to cheechus/mousethief.

mousethief in particular I acknowledge as having a massive intellect; arguably a true genius.

(I'm kind of sorry I've actually seen photos of him he's posted on the internet; my mental image of him with a hugely large skull to allow for the very oversized brain is gone.)

And I admit I appreciate a good wind up as much as the next poster. I think, like the sound engineers who literally deafen people at almost every rock concert, though, that some confuse quantity for quality.

I digress. The question to me is why (as he's done on this very thread) he insists on posting at such a low level. He could do SO much better (and maybe even do some genuine good, whatever that is) by arguing in good faith.

Us lesser mortals would appreciate a chance to be properly schooled.

That is all.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
One problem with a hell thread that is ostensibly between two people is that it encourages the assumption that one of the parties is right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No particular office is referenced there, nor even implied.

The concept of office in general - the origins of the phrase - is still very much current. I've no idea what moron actually meant, but he most certainly did not commit himself to such a comparison by what he said - not by a country mile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure that it helps moron's case to speculate that he intended Obama as a particularly egregious example of insolence not just among American presidents (a laughable suggestion) but in a data set that also includes people like Francisco Franco and Louis XIV (which takes the suggestion from laughable all the way to ludicrous).

---

Hopefully the former.

backatcha


Asshole.


(If I ever manage to get to the Seattle area I grudgingly admit I'd like to see you face to face.)
 

---

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
Moron, you can be an utter arse, but it was nice to see some humilty in that post.* Kudos.

Croesos, sheesh, you could do with some humility yourself. Even if you think you can argue yourself into justification on how you responded to moron, it's pretty apparent that I'm not the only one who has seen and experienced a constant pattern of you misrepresenting people and putting words into their mouths, and there are a hundred other comments you've made that you'd have to argue yourself into justifcation over.

So you could finally get some self-awareness and pause for thought next time you feel like being disingenuous. Or at least pause for thought next time someone points out that they think you're being disingenuous on a thread.

* eta, the post higher up, not the crosspost directly above this one

[ 16. December 2014, 19:53: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
 

---

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No particular office is referenced there, nor even implied.

The concept of office in general - the origins of the phrase - is still very much current. I've no idea what moron actually meant, but he most certainly did not commit himself to such a comparison by what he said - not by a country mile.

---

I'm not sure that it helps moron's case to speculate that he intended Obama as a particularly egregious example of insolence not just among American presidents (a laughable suggestion) but in a data set that also includes people like Francisco Franco and Louis XIV (which takes the suggestion from laughable all the way to ludicrous).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Would you like to admit that you got the definition of personify wrong now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Would you like to admit that you got the definition of personify wrong now?

---

No, for more or less the reasons already outlined by mdijon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, that was a lovely set of assertions.

---

Whilst I truly am an admirer of brevity in reply, care to expand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Language in context.

Where Robin Oakapple describes himself as 'modesty personified', I think he means he is very modest, not that he is the most modest person who has ever lived.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How about we make educational opportunities equal? How about we truly make job opportunities equal? How we fix the problems which engender crime and lower the chances of escaping poverty?

---

Absolutely. That would be great. That would involve saying that the racism is in the economic system rather than the police.

---

"Rather than?" Why can't it be in both places? In fact, is it really at all likely that the police and criminal justice system would somehow be uniquely immune to racism?

---

Perhaps not the best choice of words on my part. It would have been better to say it would be attempting to address racism in the economic system rather than racism in the police force.

I have to ask the reverse question though: how likely is it that the police and criminal justice system is exceptionally prone to racism? That's what the assumption seems to be, and yet in Purg I've been trying to talk about the lack of statistical evidence for this (and proving yet again how so many people don't actually understand what statistics do and don't say).

I'm quite sure that it's a good thing to reduce the over-representation of black people in disadvantageous interactions with the criminal justice system and/or interactions with police. AFAIK there is fairly good evidence of that fact. But it's a damn wobbly assumption that the cause of this is a police force prone to racism. It could just as easily be a legal system and police force prone to bias against poverty, which is simply not the same thing at all even if there is some correlation between poverty and race.

Because the solution is fundamentally different: if the primary determiner is socioeconomic status, then no amount of educating police to be less racist is going to change that. And people are going to pour effort into making a less racist police force, and then they're going to find it doesn't make much difference, and then they're going to yell at the police force for still being so racist, all the time ignoring the possibility of a basic confusion between causation and correlation because most people just can't think their way along chains with more than 2 links in them.

The fact is that a heck of a lot of the talk around this issue just leaps to the assumption that black disadvantage in the criminal justice system is caused directly by racism, and it's a really simplistic and bad assumption to make. It completely fails to consider whether there's anything ELSE that black people tend to have in common that could be a common cause.

It's actually lilbuddha, not me, who proposed that a solution needs to address the socioeconomic disadvantage. I've been thinking it for 2 days, but the opportunity I was looking for to insert it into the conversation never quite came up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Unchangable? Did I say unchangable?
reads own posts
Nope, I did not say unchangable. The beauty of our species is we can modify our base nature. Or, if you prefer, enhance that within us that is good.
Orfeo, though we have had our differences, I generally respect your posting. Even when I disagree. But in this thread you are coming close to a sin you are accusing the target of the thread of doing. Claiming an intent that isn't there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
But you know, if a large class of people say they think the police are biased against them - in a country with a long and sordid history of racism - you might consider giving more weight to the possibility that they've reached that position based their own hard experience with the police, and not simply "leaping to an assumption."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
So sorry, no, if a large class of people all tell me something

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Language in context.

Where Robin Oakapple describes himself as 'modesty personified', I think he means he is very modest, not that he is the most modest person who has ever lived.

---

This is what, the fourth? post where someone attempts to pin down our guest of dishonor on a matter of shifty language and dishonest motivation.

You do realize you are feeding him, don't you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
No particular office is referenced there, nor even implied.

The concept of office in general - the origins of the phrase - is still very much current. I've no idea what moron actually meant, but he most certainly did not commit himself to such a comparison by what he said - not by a country mile.

---

I'm not sure that it helps moron's case to speculate that he intended Obama as a particularly egregious example of insolence not just among American presidents (a laughable suggestion) but in a data set that also includes people like Francisco Franco and Louis XIV (which takes the suggestion from laughable all the way to ludicrous).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Would you like to admit that you got the definition of personify wrong now?

---

No, for more or less the reasons already outlined by mdijon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Language in context.

Where Robin Oakapple describes himself as 'modesty personified', I think he means he is very modest, not that he is the most modest person who has ever lived.

---

This is what, the fourth? post where someone attempts to pin down our guest of dishonor on a matter of shifty language and dishonest motivation.

You do realize you are feeding him, don't you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
But you know, if a large class of people say they think the police are biased against them - in a country with a long and sordid history of racism - you might consider giving more weight to the possibility that they've reached that position based their own hard experience with the police, and not simply "leaping to an assumption."

---

Oh, I'm open to the possibility. I'm just not taking it as proven, because, let's face it, life has taught me that a very large number of the world's people are sheep who couldn't analyse their way out of a paper bag. If that weren't the case I wouldn't have a job, and the show QI wouldn't exist.

There's a basic difference between someone telling you they think something is true, someone actually thinking something is true and something being true. The rules of opinion evidence and hearsay are built around these distinctions.

I'm usually quite prepared to assume that if someone tells me they think something is true, it's genuinely because they think it is true. I am not, with anything important, prepared to assume that it is actually true. My professional career is partly based on assuming the exact opposite - that my clients will quite sincerely tell me wrong and mistaken things, and that I need to go to primary sources and check up on them to avoid perpetuating mistakes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
So sorry, no, if a large class of people all tell me something

---

I think this gets more tricky when the large class is a community of black people rather than people bound by adherence to a particular religion or members of an office in an organization where group-think is that much more likely. Of course group-think emerges in communities, however under such circumstances the individual on the outside removed from the experience ought to have better grounds for not taking seriously the community's account than the transporting of standards for documenting truth in a legislative office.

It strikes me as curiously like the scientists dismissal of all non-material elements of the universe because they aren't accessible to the discipline that comes with their professional training.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Or instead of spending the next two pages of the thread impersonating Humpty Dumpty and picking apart moron’s comment from every possible angle, you could just admit that you didn’t give your little quip all that much thought at the time and just hoped it would make you look snarky and clever. And having been called on it, you’re now backpedalling to try to justify it and avoid looking like a jerk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
So - what primary sources have you consulted in this case? You made many impassioned posts through Dec 4 before you abandoned that thread but I don't see that you brought any evidence to the table yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Suppose we could wave some kind of magic wand and just totally dispel racism. Do we think this would make much difference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It frustrates me a lot what Croesos chooses not to respond to, as much as what he says when he does respond. He's totally happy debating the minutiae of his interaction with moron, and I'm sure he doesn't mind that it's turned into a debate on the meaning of personify.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If I have to choose between a conspiracy and a mistake, I will go for the mistake every time. If you want me to choose between a plot to kill and a series of bad, stupid judgements that led to a regrettable situation, I'll go with the unthinking route unless you can demonstrate the intentional route. In my view people are incompetent, thoughtless or accident-prone far more frequently than they are clever schemers who achieve bad things because they wanted to achieve bad things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
When a police chief doesn't reveal information at the first opportunity in a public announcement, I'm more likely to conclude that there was a lack of coordination between different people in the police force rather than a wide conspiracy to hide the information.

---

quote:

---

Black drivers (12.3%) were about three times as likely as white drivers (3.9%) and about two times as likely as Hispanic drivers (5.8%) to be searched during a traffic stop in 2008.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If I have to choose between a conspiracy and a mistake, I will go for the mistake every time. If you want me to choose between a plot to kill and a series of bad, stupid judgements that led to a regrettable situation, I'll go with the unthinking route unless you can demonstrate the intentional route. In my view people are incompetent, thoughtless or accident-prone far more frequently than they are clever schemers who achieve bad things because they wanted to achieve bad things.

---

<snip>

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
When a police chief doesn't reveal information at the first opportunity in a public announcement, I'm more likely to conclude that there was a lack of coordination between different people in the police force rather than a wide conspiracy to hide the information.

---

I think this may because you (like me) are well-accustomed to large bureaucracies; others may not have the same viewpoint. I'm not sure how government agencies do business in Australia, but this sort of "one hand doesn't know what the other is up to" situation is all too common here - in my world, it's the normal state of affairs much of the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Orfeo we look at the sheer number of African-Americans stop and the sheer number of Caucasians stopped. Surely if you're so damnably curious, you could have done this for yourself. A quick google found me these statistics* and this table.


*

quote:

---

Black drivers (12.3%) were about three times as likely as white drivers (3.9%) and about two times as likely as Hispanic drivers (5.8%) to be searched during a traffic stop in 2008.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay then Doc Tor. So tell me, how do we successfully distinguish between the black people that are stopped because of the colour of their skin and the black people that are stopped for some other reason?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If you then conclude the treatment of minorities is equal in the eyes of the law, you are wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay then Doc Tor. So tell me, how do we successfully distinguish between the black people that are stopped because of the colour of their skin and the black people that are stopped for some other reason?

---

We don't. We can't.

If we look at only individuals in a population of toads, we can't tell which ones are wartier than others. Each toad's warts are each toad's warts. It's only when we look at the whole population can we make a judgement about the relative wartiness of an individual toad. So - and this is the point of the toad thing - looking at individual toads tells you nothing about how warty or not they are.

Likewise, looking at an individual police-civilian interaction tells us very little about that individual interaction other than it provides a data point. Only by looking at all police-civilian interactions can we see a pattern.

And look, it might be that all my BME mates are as shady as fuck, but they all have multiple stories about being hassled by the police. I don't. There is a pattern. It's an unpleasant one. It's acknowledged not just by those people it affects, but now by those who do the affecting.

You can't see the picture by staring at a single phosphor dot. That's all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It is a matter of regret if you were stopped without reasonable cause.

I am not going to apologise for asking the question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I was making the point that you completely underestimate the impact of these sorts of incidents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I take it back, I do have that magic wand: Right now we can pretty well figure they are all affected by racism!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I was making the point that you completely underestimate the impact of these sorts of incidents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But I never made a statement about the impact of these sorts of incidents in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Suppose we could wave some kind of magic wand and just totally dispel racism. Do we think this would make much difference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Please, please tell me you can understand why that doesn't follow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
But I do think you aren't seeing just how cancerous this is in society, how it creates feedback loops that pit communities against each other and create more paranoia and aggression. The effects of not being stopped for being black go way beyond being late for work - they affect the disposition of a group of young men, which has an effect on crime, which has an effect on how the police view them, which has further effects on how the police are able to work in a community and ends up having profound effects on the frequency of events.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You can't see the picture by staring at a single phosphor dot. That's all.

---

Exactly. And this is exactly what I've been saying, every time I protest about the way that the single phosphor dot of the death of Trayvon Martin or of Michael Brown or of Eric Garner is treated. It keeps feeling to me like every phosphor dot is treated as containing the finished picture, as if every data point is treated as containing average data.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay then. But I think part of the question is: would the feedback loop actually stop if the original stimulus was removed? Or does it just keep running on the memory/expectation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Again, all I am reading orfeo to say is that you cannot try any person by means of such inferences, whatever the stats on group behaviour might say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You can't see the picture by staring at a single phosphor dot. That's all.

---

Exactly. And this is exactly what I've been saying, every time I protest about the way that the single phosphor dot of the death of Trayvon Martin or of Michael Brown or of Eric Garner is treated. It keeps feeling to me like every phosphor dot is treated as containing the finished picture, as if every data point is treated as containing average data.

---

But that's the opposite to what the take-home message needs to be.

Each incident is, in and of itself, a unique incident. Each of the outcomes may or may not have been justified on its own basis. So far, so fair.

My - and a lot of other people's - point is that this is the wrong way to look at the data. Yes, in Gwai's car-stopping example, you correctly say that one-third of stops were legitimate. Without the outrage of realising that fully two-thirds of stops on black drivers, and around a half on Hispanics, were entirely unjustifiable and a breach of the law, their rights and their dignities.

That is the picture. And frankly, I'm surprised they don't riot and burn shit down every day over it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And I'm surprised that "they":

1.riot and burn shit down over the death of a thief who seems to have reached for a police officer's gun;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It's not a cheap shot at Gwai at all. It's a hope based on the experience that Gwai is one of the more intelligent, insightful and nuanced posters on the Ship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It's not a cheap shot at Gwai at all. It's a hope based on the experience that Gwai is one of the more intelligent, insightful and nuanced posters on the Ship.

---

Yes, and intelligent, insightful and nuanced posters must ALL agree with you! Of course! Why did I not see that immediately?!?!?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I take it back, I do have that magic wand: Right now we can pretty well figure they are all affected by racism!

---

And Michael Brown died because he was black. QED.

Please, please tell me you can understand why that doesn't follow. In exactly the same way that you can understand that saying that employment in the USA is affected by racism is not a basis for saying in any given case that "I didn't get the job because I'm black".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Again, all I am reading orfeo to say is that you cannot try any person by means of such inferences, whatever the stats on group behaviour might say.

---

This is a perfectly reasonable thing to say.

To then go on and say that racism is not a problem, or not the primary problem, in police-civilian interactions, is contrary to the evidence of the aggregated statistics.

Because the guilt or innocence in any specific case cannot be used to determine group behaviour.

---

My understanding (which could be totally wrong of course) is that Orfeo is not saying that racism is not a problem; he is saying that it has not been 100% absolutely proven that it is the primary problem. It could be the primary problem but we do not know for sure.

I suspect that wealthy black men get stopped proportionately more often by US police than poor white men do, which would suggest that the disparity is caused by skin-colour rather than poverty, but nobody has produced the stats to prove that yet.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
orfeo,

To address you why this riot and not that one post.
First, see Gwai's post. Then do a Google search and you will find that there are indeed protests addressing the killing of Tamir Rice and Eric Garner. Because of Ferguson, they have been merged with those protests, but they are present no less.
Lastly; orfeo let me introduce you to humans. We are a little erratic at time. Why does one spark ignite the tinder when another didn't? Hard to predict. That the fire would happen is fairly predictable, the when and where, less so.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
JoannaP,

I would suggest the sample group is far too small.
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
My understanding (which could be totally wrong of course) is that Orfeo is not saying that racism is not a problem; he is saying that it has not been 100% absolutely proven that it is the primary problem. It could be the primary problem but we do not know for sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

I suspect that wealthy black men get stopped proportionately more often by US police than poor white men do, which would suggest that the disparity is caused by skin-colour rather than poverty, but nobody has produced the stats to prove that yet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
I suspect that wealthy black men get stopped proportionately more often by US police than poor white men do, which would suggest that the disparity is caused by skin-colour rather than poverty, but nobody has produced the stats to prove that yet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And I'm surprised that "they":

---

quote:

---

1.riot and burn shit down over the death of a thief who seems to have reached for a police officer's gun;

---

quote:

---

2.protest loudly over the death of a teenager who appears to have unwisely banged the head of a man into the ground;

---

quote:

---

3.protest quietly and peaceably over the death of a man who was no physical threat as the result of a hold that should never have been used; and

---

quote:

---

4.don't seem to say much at all over the death of a wholly innocent child at the hands of a police officer who shot within 2 seconds of arriving at the scene.

---

quote:

---

That list just seems spectacularly arse-backwards to me. The very cases that are generating the outrage over police racism are the ones most prone to other explanations. In fact, the outrage doesn't seem to be generated by police racism, it's generated by the failure to treat a case as one of police racism.

---

quote:

---

To talk in the language we were using, the outrage comes when an outlying data point that doesn't actually lend much evidentiary weight to the ongoing presence of racist attitudes (because it can be readily explained by other means) isn't treated as a stereotypical, average data point that proves yet again how racist everything is. The outrage comes from a failure to meet a set of standard expectations about how white killers of black people should be treated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
The court made a decision. Let's leave aside the question of whether or not it was the right decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
The court made a decision. Let's leave aside the question of whether or not it was the right decision.

---

No, let's not. Because where I'm coming from is that court decisions are designed to be about individual guilt or innocence and are of vital importance to the person actually being put on trial, and that people who react to a court decision based on whether it fits with their agenda, rather than whether it was the right decision on the facts, are heading in a very dangerous direction.

---

quote:

---

I object at a fundamental level to the proposition of "show trials" of white policemen just because it will satisfy a desire to redress the imbalance between white power and black disadvantage.

---

quote:

---

I fundamentally object to an individual white policeman being made the scapegoat for the failings of the system.

---

quote:

---

If the protests are not about an individual person and an individual case, then how about the protests stop coinciding with individual cases and with decisions in individual cases? How about having more protests that don't draw their location or their timing from an individual case?

---

quote:

---

I'd actually think that was fantastic idea myself. Have a march in the State capital that is planned ahead of time and which goes ahead regardless of whether anyone's been killed that week. That would do wonders in terms of demonstrating that it's about the ongoing relationship between police and communities, not about the particular death. It wouldn't be so reactive.

---

quote:

---

It's not about me trying to understand emotional responses through logic. It's about me flatly saying that emotional responses are not a safe basis for decision making, and they sure as hell aren't a safe basis for putting people on criminal trial.

---

quote:

---

The whole point of laws - the whole point of what I do every day in writing laws - is to set down rules ahead of time and NOT just react to the individual case as and when it happens. We don't convict people based on whether we think what they did was good or bad, or smart or dumb, we convict people based on whether we think what they did breached a rule that was in place when they acted.

---

quote:

---

People can heap all the moral condemnation they like on Wilson for killing Brown, but a criminal trial is not, in the last couple of centuries at least, about deciding whether we think the defendant is a nice man, and I don't care how emotional it is or how often people do this (including in situations that have no racial factors), it is still wrong to condemn a court decision just because it didn't come to the result you emotionally wanted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You claim that individual cases shouldn't be a focus for protest. If the Prosecutor is simply going to dismiss the case if there isn't a protest, regardless of the merits, then protest is the appropriate action. If your friends and relatives have been repeatedly harassed and abused by the police and that Law that you are so fond of simply ignores the injustice, then you are not likely to think that justice will be done without protest and or violence. To proclaim that people should just obey the arbitrary behavior of the police and hope it all works out or that they'll be given a chance in court to show their innocence is naïve verging on willful blindness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Your analogy only reinforces the idea that people who quietly accept the problem don't really help solve it. Someone has to make that call.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
In New York, I know that there have at least been moves to work on police training and procedures so that they don't apply anything like a choke hold. That's template-change, not document-change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Who's making the directed push for systemic change that's relevant to the next encounter?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
In New York, I know that there have at least been moves to work on police training and procedures so that they don't apply anything like a choke hold. That's template-change, not document-change.

---

Oh is it, now?

Choke holds have been banned in NYC for more than 20 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Protest is really the only tool we have to accomplish that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Good grief, orfeo's point is perfectly easy to understand. He's saying that if you want a Rosa Parks figure to force change in systemic police racism, the cases in question are not particularly good examples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
In fact, most protests are exactly the same in effect as RooK's sarcastic note to "keep all racist thoughts for off-duty time". A protest is a bunch of people shouting at the authorities "stop being racist!".

To which the authorities will think "we weren't consciously trying to be!", and that's that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moron:
please pardon all my claptrap

If [shipmate name removed] early posting here was not sincere i concede defeat and appreciate the schoolings

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]
That's what I'm saying. Not that there shouldn't be any kind of protest, but that reacting to each individual case is only going to put pressure on a prosecutor (if indeed it does - it got a trial for Zimmerman but I'm not aware of any other case where it got a change in the short-term outcome) in that individual case.

And the system goes on its merry way for every other case, treating that protest as being about THAT case and no other case, until the next time there's a case that people decide to protest over.

I'm not saying being cranky about injustice is wrong, I'm saying THAT METHOD of being cranky about injustice is deeply ineffective.

It's a trivial example, but you've reminded me of what happened in a department I worked for. There was a mistake in an important document template that hundreds of people used. Some people didn't notice and created documents with the mistake. Some people did notice, grumbled and fixed it on the document they were working on.

I went through a whole bunch of phone calls to find out who in IT would be able to fix the template, persuaded them there was an error (their response was "we had an entire division testing this and noone told us"), and that one fix solved the problem for hundreds of people including those I didn't even know.

So figure out what you're trying to solve: the individual case or the system. The document or the template. Act accordingly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
So figure out what you're trying to solve: the individual case or the system. The document or the template. Act accordingly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Good grief, orfeo's point is perfectly easy to understand. He's saying that if you want a Rosa Parks figure to force change in systemic police racism, the cases in question are not particularly good examples.

---

I can't put that easy to understand (but IMO wrong) point together with;

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
In fact, most protests are exactly the same in effect as RooK's sarcastic note to "keep all racist thoughts for off-duty time". A protest is a bunch of people shouting at the authorities "stop being racist!".

To which the authorities will think "we weren't consciously trying to be!", and that's that.

---

On the face of it that advice would translate into telling Rosa Parks not to bother.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
It's amusing to watch you claim that the Blacks being arrested on spurious charges should put their faith in the justice system

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Basically you're saying it's a waste of time to even call the IT guy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Rosa Parks did something very specific about her dissatisfaction with not being allowed to sit where she wanted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Basically you're saying it's a waste of time to even call the IT guy.

---

No, I'm saying they're calling the IT guy and saying "fix my document", and that doing this from to time is a hell of a lot less effective than calling him and saying "we need to fix the template".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
People don't get emotional and motivated by discussing the system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
In New York, I know that there have at least been moves to work on police training and procedures so that they don't apply anything like a choke hold. That's template-change, not document-change.

---

Oh is it, now?

Choke holds have been banned in NYC for more than 20 years.

---

Yeah, I know. I've known that for weeks.

But if you can't understand the difference between having a ban on the books and making sure that police are TRAINED properly so that they wouldn't do anything close to a choke hold, I can't help you with your particular kind of stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Fine, Dave. Let's just accept that cops are arsreholes who are going to apply chokeholds even when you tell them not to because they're evil and they get a hard-on at the thought of hurting a black man.

---

Uh, yeah, that's exactly what Dave said. False dichotomy much?
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Fine, Dave. Let's just accept that cops are arsreholes who are going to apply chokeholds even when you tell them not to because they're evil and they get a hard-on at the thought of hurting a black man.

---

Uh, yeah, that's exactly what Dave said. False dichotomy much?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Indeed, it seems often the requirement by organizations to overcome their inertia is the other way around in favour of the specific rather than the general.

"Your IT support really sucks" often doesn't achieve organizational change.

"This printer at this workstation doesn't work and when I called the IT guy he said so what" might trigger some questioning. Several similar incidents might trigger attention by the head of IT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
But who is in charge of the police in the USA? Is there one person who has authority over both the NYPD and the cops in Ferguson? In this country, the answer is obviously the Home Secretary but things are so decentralised in the States that I am not sure there is an equivalent. If there is no head of IT with authority to fix the systemic problem, then what should one do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Fine, Dave. Let's just accept that cops are arsreholes who are going to apply chokeholds even when you tell them not to because they're evil and they get a hard-on at the thought of hurting a black man.

---

Uh, yeah, that's exactly what Dave said. False dichotomy much?

---

What he's said is that there is already a ban on chokeholds, and there must have already been training on not doing chokeholds, and yet Garner still died from a chokehold. What other conclusion do you want me draw other than he's saying that individual police are fully aware they're not supposed to do chokeholds, and why, and what to do instead, and yet still do chokeholds?

That certainly seems to be what his sarcastic sniping means. That the training is not improvable - because he's being derisive about a proposal to improve training. Which can only mean that the police got fully effective training but chose to ignore it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Does the Home Secretary in the UK have the power to give direct orders to a local constabulary?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Indeed, it seems often the requirement by organizations to overcome their inertia is the other way around in favour of the specific rather than the general.

"Your IT support really sucks" often doesn't achieve organizational change.

"This printer at this workstation doesn't work and when I called the IT guy he said so what" might trigger some questioning. Several similar incidents might trigger attention by the head of IT.

---

 

---

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Does the Home Secretary in the UK have the power to give direct orders to a local constabulary?

---

Pretty much. She can call in the Chief Constable of the force in question and essentially yell at him until he sorts it. A Parliamentary committee can do the same thing, but it's televised, too.

There are also other mechanisms: the Independent Police Complaints Commission for individual cases of wrong-doing, the elected Police and Crime Commissioner for a force can also investigate, and there's always judicial review by a judge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Basically you're saying it's a waste of time to even call the IT guy.

---

No, I'm saying they're calling the IT guy and saying "fix my document", and that doing this from to time is a hell of a lot less effective than calling him and saying "we need to fix the template".

---

The IT guy will fix the template, not when the end-users become a pain the in arse with their phone calls, but when his line manager is told by some executive to find someone to fix the template because the exec is receiving all these pain-in-the-arse phone calls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There are also other mechanisms: the Independent Police Complaints Commission for individual cases of wrong-doing, the elected Police and Crime Commissioner for a force can also investigate, and there's always judicial review by a judge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Porridge

Don't think so! Australians do different as a matter of course! Comes from being upside down cf us Northern Hemisphere types.

Australian Football is played on a circular pitch wth a centre square rather than a centre circle. They invented 'sledging' as a way of intimidating cricket opponents. They celebrate rebels and sometimes even elect them. Not a conformist people and that's what I like about them.

All generalisations of course. Dangerous things they are. Some Australian will come along and do a bit of 'sledging' directed at me AND you ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Okay help me out. What the hell is "the template" here? It's clearly being used metaphorically but I'm not sure what it stands for in real-world terms.

---

Whether real or a metaphorical, templates are used to constrain responses to those which the authors of the template want to understand. They are all about fitting things in nice, neat boxes.

Me? Template hater?
 

---

Posted by moron (# 206) on :
 
mt: I did say a bit.

Remember those myriad times you goaded me by suggesting I should call you into Hell and you finally called me? How well did that all end for you? Did you feel pretty good about yourself after that?

Just curious as I'm one of those old school dinosaurs who believes blatant lying to wind up is tacky, at best, not particularly clever and wears thin exceptionally quickly.

And you'll need to put some WD40 on that to pull in the lunkers.


Much more importantly: I've mentioned Steven Van Zandt on these fora before. A guy I like who has a wicked sense of humour encouraged me to watch Lilyhammer on Netflix (no affiliation) and it is bust a gut funny. The writing is superb and Little Steven really personifies a brash rude smart mafia type who transforms Lillehammer in good but *ahem* rather unorthodox fashion.

If you're a fan of the series you'll recall the _Night Ravens__episode where Frank, after he realizes applying tape to a baseball bat is frowned upon by the Night Raven poobah backs down and says 'Aaah... just fucking witcha'.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Okay help me out. What the hell is "the template" here? It's clearly being used metaphorically but I'm not sure what it stands for in real-world terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Porridge

Don't think so! Australians do different as a matter of course! Comes from being upside down cf us Northern Hemisphere types.

Australian Football is played on a circular pitch wth a centre square rather than a centre circle. They invented 'sledging' as a way of intimidating cricket opponents. They celebrate rebels and sometimes even elect them. Not a conformist people and that's what I like about them.

All generalisations of course. Dangerous things they are. Some Australian will come along and do a bit of 'sledging' directed at me AND you ...

---

Generalizations are dangerous; but where did I suggest that Australians are a bunch of conformists? All I'm suggesting is that, culturally speaking, Americans may be more comfortable with political protest as a means of demanding change. It's far from the only method of fostering social change; it may be one of the slower, more cumbersome, more disruptive and least agreeable of the available methods.

I have no idea what Australians typically do when faced with a need for change, and I wasn't attempting to suggest how they might act (because I don't know). I do know that protest is a pretty typical American response in such situations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Three things:

1. Dave W, learn the difference between whether something is a change of the template and whether something is a large change. I said template-changing, not game-changing.

---

quote:

---

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

---

quote:

---

As Chief Justice of the United States Warren E. Burger noted in an address to the American Bar Association in 1970: "A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society: that people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value; that people who have long been exploited in the smaller transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over-reaching; that people come to believe the law – in the larger sense – cannot fulfill its primary function to protect them and their families in their homes, at their work, and on the public streets."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Think of violent protest as extended teasing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Generalizations are dangerous

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saysay:
Fuck you, Faux News.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I'm sure the White House has a long list of complaints about Fox news since it's a Republican propaganda machine and they still haven't forgiven Obama for winning re-election. There is not much to be done about partisan lying other than generating counter propaganda showing the lies.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0