|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Cheechus
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
Irish orator John Philpot Curran in 1790: "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance."
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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).
And that's the step towards circularity I'm talking about. If you have already decided that the system cannot be trusted, what are you monitoring? Are you actually going to notice the times when the system arrives at the correct result as much as you're going to notice the times when it doesn't? And are you going to keep an open mind as to what the correct result actually is as the evidence gathers?
I'd be most interested to test your sense of justice with the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, for example.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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
I wouldn't describe posts like "You mean uppity" or "You mean why do these unarmed black men keep shooting themselves" as pointing out the logical inconsistencies in other people's worldviews.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
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.
Speaking only for myself - I don't think he's a troll.
I generally think of him as a holier/more-liberal-than-thou jerk who's so far up his own ass it's amazing he can a) find air to breathe or b) reach a keyboard to type. And one who believes his own hype; he seems convinced he's the smartest guy in the room. If only.
At least that's his persona here. In the real world, he *may* be a wonderful, humble human being who spends all day, every day, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and saving little kittens from a life of privation. Here - he's generally a jackass.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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).
No system can be trusted to be self-monitoring. That is a reason I posted that quote by Curren.
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.
Personally, the most generous interpretation I have is Zimmerman instigated a confrontation that needn't have existed and a life ended because of that.
Justice? No, justice was not served. Does this mean I think Zimmerman should been convicted of murder? No. It means as far as the legal aspects, I think that it was a mess, poorly handled from the outset. But this is as far as I'm going. If you are selecting that tune on the jukebox, find another partner, 'cause I'm not dancing.
[ 15. December 2014, 17:44: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
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.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
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.
Let me remind you of Eddy. He'd been registered on the Ship since 2002 and it wasn't until about 8 years later that he was finally planked. Very subtle, low level trolling was his style. He use to misrepresent people, too.
So no, it's not odd that someone who's been on these boards for years is a troll. Because it has happened before.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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?
If 'liberal' means 'let the rich screw the poor' it isn't so good.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
Carry on, then. Nothing to see here...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
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.
Maybe we should agree to disagree. For one thing, I think a troll doesn't just go online to troll. There was a study earlier this year that found many trolls were nasty in real-life too, "Internet trolls are also real-life trolls."
As for the "subte, low-level trolling", I've seen this style on other forums too. I don't remember if you hung out in Eccles much back then but it became pretty obvious to a lot of people that it was his style of trolling. Even Erin called it "this stupid death by a thousand cuts method of posting". Not to mention the gazillion sock-puppets he had (I can remember at least 5 of 'em besides Eddy). One of them even had its own blog. Now that, sir or madam, is some subtle, low-level trolling.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No system can be trusted to be self-monitoring. That is a reason I posted that quote by Curren.
Agreed in principle. But which system? Police officers are accountable within the police service, the police services are accountable to local and state authorities, there is some Federal oversight of civil rights, there is Congress, and there is the Supreme Court. All have systems in place. All existing monitoring can be improved and there are processes for looking at that.
If folks reckon the deck is generally stacked, there isn't any way out of that. So improved independent monitoring requires specific proposals for change. Like grand jury reporting reform, or Doublethink's Purg proposals for strict liability for example.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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.
Ok, I'll bite. I'm no big fan of moron, but here's kind if thing that you seem to never grasp.
That sentence there is not what moron said. Not even close. It's your interpretation of what moron said.
And as interpretations go, it's a poor one. First off, in the context of the US, there are no black presidentS - there's been one. Moron made no comparison of black and white presidents. He didn't make any connection with the colour of Obama's skin and his impacts and policies. He said nothing about black presidents being "exceptional exemplars of insolence". He said that in his opinion, Obama epitomises the "insolence of office". Which is about people in power, not black people or white people. He made no reference to approving of what previous white presidents have done whilst disapproving of Obama because, although he has done the same things, he's black. What you just posted is entirely an interpretation of your own invention.
And so, you've done what you do so often. You've taken something someone said, interpreted it in a negative racist/sexist/homophobic light (because that's what you like to do), and then reacted to your own manufactured interpretation, rather than making any effort to understand what the other person was actually saying. My guess is that moron doesn't like Obama because he's a socialist. Maybe I'm wrong and it is because he's black. But if so, that's not something you can in any way infer from what moron actually posted. And one easy way to try to find out - ask him! Don't just decide that you know what other people think.
And did the fact that you got called to Hell over it give you the tiniest pause for thought to reconsider and think "maybe my interpretation of that was off?". No. As usual. Hell, even when you have people telling you directly "That's not what I said and that's not what I think" you'd still rather cling to your own internal version of what you think they must think. Why???
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Why? Because he's a douche.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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?
Oh for fuck's sake, it couldn't just be that he's the current President, could it? It couldn't be that there was no attempt to make a comparison with previous Presidents?
No. Have it your way. You are always right. ALWAYS.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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'.
Which, to follow your style of summing up other people's posts, is another way of saying that you'd still rather cling to your own internal version of what you think moron must think.
Like you say, "for some reason". You've decided that reason is racism. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. You could ask moron to clarify what he thinks that reason might be. You could then tell him his reason sucks. You could then interpret that reason as subconcious racism. But that's a lot more steps down the line of discussion.
You and I would agree Obama isn't the personfication of the insolence of office. It's a dumbass comment and I doubt moron can really back up. The leap you've made is deciding that the comment he made must have been made for racist reasons. You have no way of knowing that yet. You might be right, moron might have just said it because he's a racist. I'm willing to be persuaded of that. But it would take a lot more than just your assertion.
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?
You know what Orfeo was saying about confirmation bias? It's sounds suspiciously like the way you reason is "someone's criticising Obama? It must be because he's black". Again maybe it is, maybe it isn't. You don't know.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
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?
I could be confusing you with another poster; it was a long time ago and pre-Oblivion so I don't think it still exists.
I think the call arose out of a thread discussing a NYT article which featured a female undergraduate living in a mixed gender dorm room whose parents refused to pay the bill unless she moved.
I was insisting that parents generally want to keep their children safe and generally create the rules they think are necessary to do so, and while we can disagree about whether or not particular rules are helpful, insulting the parents' motivation wasn't going to generate much light. Croesus was basically calling me a rapist who thinks that women get what they deserve when they're victims of violence because they're women.
But maybe there was some other white knight in that argument.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
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 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.
And that is what I am asking for, this is what I want.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why? Because he's a douche.
And because attacking a misrepresentation of what somebody says is easier than addressing what they actually said. Croesus plays a game. A few times I've played the game with him and done the same thing to him as he does to others. For pages and pages, I kept insisting he said what I said he said. Here is the thing. I didn't have to think very much at all. It was fun at first. However, doing that sort of thing on a regular basis is a waste of time. Croesus has been at it for years. So, I consider him a troll.
Only three ways of dealing with Croesus...
1. Agree with every word he writes.
2. Play the same game he does.
3. Ignore him
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
The purpose of a criminal trial is to determine the guilt or innocence, at law, of the accused person.
Should Zimmerman have been convicted? Answer supplied: no. Was Zimmerman have been convicted? Answer already known: no.
What justice would everybody like to have been achieved apart from a match between beteen the verdict and the outcome that 'should' have occurred?
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. Saying that the verdict was correct but that "justice was not served" is about as sensible as going to an Italian restaurant, ordering pasta but then complaining when it's delivered to the table that what you really wanted to eat was sushi. You're in the wrong place.
[ 16. December 2014, 05:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
You do not solve the very real problems of poor access to legal representation for many people by taking away the legal representation of those who have it. You do not solve the injustice of certain verdicts against the poor and unrepresented by making the verdicts against the wealthy equally unjust.
You do not "serve justice" by convicting George Zimmerman just because you think a black defendant would have had a higher chance of being convicted.
Not unless you think that equal outcomes are more important than better outcomes.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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?
We were talking about the system. What system were we talking about if it wasn't the one that involves people being investigated for criminal offences, sometimes being charged with criminal offences, and sometimes being trialled for criminal offences, and sometimes being convicted for criminal offences?
People only go to jail if all those steps happen. Zimmerman didn't go to jail because he wasn't convicted. Exactly the same outcome would have occurred if he hadn't been charged.
In fact he wasn't originally charged, almost certainly because the people who saw the evidence of his self-defence claim with their own damn eyes could work out very quickly that there was no prospect of a conviction.
I am saying that if an acquittal was the correct result - and note that this is explicitly the position of lilbuddha - then the rest is only so much misdirected hot air. Nobody around here thinks that Zimmerman is a brilliant tactical mind with no blame for what happened. The point is the criminal law DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK.
And we don't ASK it to give a fuck, and if all of you whining abstract justice seekers stopped to think for a moment, you'd realise that we don't WANT it to give a fuck. The prospect of a legal system that sits in that kind of judgement over our moral failings and punishes us for being thoughtless and stupid is bloody terrifying. We'd all have criminal records.
It comes down to exactly the same cry I've been making in purgatory - you can't know the solution to a problem until you know which problem you're trying to solve. And it seems to me that people want criminal trials to solve EVERYTHING, when they were never designed for that. A criminal trial is not the cure to all social ills, nor is a criminal conviction.
If you want to stop black kids being killed in confrontations with non-black people (Zimmerman being neither a cop nor, in conventional American parlance, white), there are a whole range of strategies to be used. Most of them don't involve criminal trials. Hell, let's pick an obvious one: teach black kids not to react in such thoroughly stupid ways that turn a possible confrontation to an actual one. Don't bang a man's head into the ground. Don't fucking reach for a police officer's gun. STOP TRYING TO BE SO FUCKING MACHO. If we're going to start putting people on trial for sheer stupidity, I propose we do it posthumously as well.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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?
Unless the inequities are fixed, all your solutions are useless and close to blaming the victim.
[ 16. December 2014, 06:11: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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. That would acknowledge that just maybe white poor people are overrepresented in these problems just as much as black poor people, and that it's the poverty that's the direct cause.
quote:
Unless the inequities are fixed, all your solutions are useless and close to blaming the victim.
Why are they useless?
As for blaming the victim: YUP. In some cases. It is the height of idiocy to treat "dead black people" as a uniform category as if the colour of their skin was the primary determining factor in each case and completely ignore their behaviour and whether it was a major determining factor. Seriously, how do you think it would go down if a big young white guy used to intimidating people with his size decided to grab for a police officer's gun? For fuck's sake, treating that case as the same as the case of a young kid in Cleveland with a toy gun IS RACISM.
[ 16. December 2014, 10:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
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?
I think the point is better made about the response to orfeo, TBH.
orfeo was clearly trying to make an intelligent, nuanced point, based on a careful consideration of the facts and issues, and to characterise that as a knee-jerk defence of racism was so clearly unjustified that I have to doubt whether it was done in good faith.
On the other hand, moron's comment about Obama epitomising "insolence" was so odd, and so inappropriate a statement, and so visibly uncontaminated with anything approaching thought or discernment, that it could very reasonably be inferred that what he meant was something both stupid and prejudiced. Yes, I concede, not necessarily racially prejudiced, but certainly and beyond doubt stupid.
Yes, it was a cheap shot, but not the sort of cheap shot that gets in the way of intelligent reasoned debate, because moron hadn't contributed any (nor seemed likely to).
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.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
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. You just were so certain that 'personify' has exactly one meaning and everyone uses it in precisely that way every time. You're just so efficient at reaching conclusions, aren't you?
And what a fantastic planet you must live on, where words have such clear meanings and there is no opportunity for ambiguity. Of course, if I lived on that planet, I'd be out of a job.
Perhaps now would be a good time to clarify that when I called you a douche, I was not actually intending to convey that I propose sticking you up my arse in preparation for anal sex. I expect you found the term quite confusing as I failed to use it in the most conventionally literal sense.
What I actually meant was to convey that I find you a really unpleasant person to have a conversation with, on account of your determination to take people's remarks in the worst possible light** at all times. I was being "idiomatic" - hopefully that's a term you can look up.
I perhaps should explain, too, that when I tell you to fuck off, I am not actually encouraging you to engage in sexual intercourse.
But please, do fuck off.
**Does not actually refer to photons.
[ 16. December 2014, 14:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Humans are inherently racist. Well, to be more accurate, we naturally align with those we consider "us" and against those who are different. Colour is the most obvious difference and the most difficult to conceal.
Even should cops and the rest of the justice system be no more prejudice than the rest, they have power.
But I posit this to you: The justice system is going to naturally worse. Why? In the same way that we align with like, we also ignore it as a factor. A disproportionate number of the people going through the system are minority. A white cop/prosecutor/judge will see the differences to them in the accused and are more likely to associate that difference with crime.
Poverty is a factor in all this, yes, but not the only factor. If nothing else, Colour is an additional point in the negative column.
Think of the gent you met in Seattle. Why did he react so? Seattle is majority white. So he will encounter from the hardcore racists through the passive racists and the not-really-racist-but-uncomfortable-and-hyper aware-and-unsure-how-to-act-and-so-ignore-or-do-something-weird down to those who simply treat him as another human. But so what? We all do. The difference is that the last category is massively underrepresented when there is little exposure to average people in different groups. And the first two are massively over-represented.
And the justice systems are majority white.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Well, that was a lovely set of assertions.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
That's what's fascinating, though-- in touching moron's nerve, he apparently touched the nerve of a couple dozen other people who are fed up with this shit.
Also fascinating to me-- the first page of this thread looked like a typical yawn, what a stupid thread beginning of a dogpile on the OP. A couple people-- chiefly Barnabas, I'd say-- spoke up supporting moron's right to pissedoffness, and all of a sudden the thread is a dogpile on Croesos.
And what an epic thread this has turned out to be. From a philosophical point of view, one of our best. We're not just arguing, we're arguing about arguing. How cool is that?
Personally, the only reason I got involved at all was that I thought Barnabas had a point, it deserved consideration, and in considerting his point, I decided he was right. It reminds me of those freaky social experiments of the sixites-- where people were sent to rooms to take fake surveys and someone pretended to have a heart attack in the next room. One of the discoveries they made, in the midst of a lot of depressing confirmation of human sheeplike behavior, was that all it took was one person, stating in a confident way, that something was wrong, to galvanize everyone into action.
Which means we need to speak up more. It revitalizes everyone.
On that note, I'm gonna speak up and opine that in addition to picking on Croesos, we might be checking our damn selves. Like I said, is he getting away with the potshots because we approve of who or what he is shooting at?
(Duuuude. Code, m'kay? You were only quoting Eliab, not the other two guys... DT, HH)
[ 16. December 2014, 16:22: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Occam's razor. He might be getting away with it because so many of us don't read his posts anymore.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
I could also have simply assumed that moron said exactly what he meant and used the term "personify" in a manner consistent with its most common usage and the context of both the thread and moron's previous comments. Which is what I did. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be moron's editor-in-chief. If he wants to clarify his comments, that's his job.
[ 16. December 2014, 16:19: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
Fair enough.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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.
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:
To be an embodiment of (a quality, etc.); to exemplify in a typical manner or to a marked degree.
Do you want to modify your claim at all in the light of that?
[ 16. December 2014, 16:36: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
I agree that we don't want to get to a situation where nobody can criticise Obama without being accused of racism. On the other hand, my perception is that racism is embedded in a lot of anti-Obama rhetoric like the motto running through a stick of rock. This is not to say that those deploying that rhetoric are themselves consciously racist, but I think it is legitimate to reflect back that when someone says Obama personifies the "insolence of office", the line between that kind of comment and the word "uppity" (and all its implications) is wafer-thin.
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?
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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?
Your certainty about the specifiness of the reference here puzzles me. Just as obvious to me is the notion that "office" as a general concept - the exercise of a position of authority - is wider than and not specific to any particular example. Since when was the only office of authority that of the POTUS?
The origin of the term "the insolence of office" would appear to be Hamlet: 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[.]
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.
So Croesus is wrong both with regard to "personify" and with regard to "office" - both can very naturally in that context be read without the absolute implication he attributes them. In so bluntly overstating his case, he's kind of making his critics' point for them.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
