Black Lives Matter thread

Originally posted by Surtur
You know Bulbasaur is part jew right?

Originally posted by It's xyz!
explain it like I'm 5

Well okay: one of his parents were Jewish. Thus he's only half. His dad was a methodist, crazy right? Crop out half your avatar.

I will let you decide which half looks more like it secretly controls the world.(It's the left, because left handed people are evil too).

I don't see it.

No shekels, no big nose, no dagger teeth and no monkey hands.

He's no Bernie sanders or Arthur from the King of queens.

You don't see it because it's a secret, silly.

So should this woman of been fired for what she did?

http://fusion.net/story/287126/wendy-bell-wtae-fired-facebook-post/

Originally posted by Surtur
So should this woman of been fired for what she did?

http://fusion.net/story/287126/wendy-bell-wtae-fired-facebook-post/

Since she is a public face of a company, probably.

It just seems like these days people don't want to deal with some unfortunate truths.

Didn't think this need another thread.
YouTube video

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Since she is a public face of a company, probably.

It also needs to be said she was correct in her assessment of who did it.

Which on that note I want to talk about racism, or a very specific kind. Do you guys think bringing up facts about a certain race is racist? Even if, like I said, they are actual facts..albeit unpleasant ones.

I've seen some blacks claim this is racism for whites to point this out. Some even said it's racist to point these things out because they are all white peoples fault.

I find it eerily similar to how some people think it's wrong to talk about blacks being racist against whites. For me that is like saying we shouldn't talk about male rape victims because females are statistically more likely to be raped. Which I find silly. Or that we shouldn't talk about the cases of females lying about rape because most of the time they aren't lying.

Pointing out facts isn't the issue, drawing false conclusions from looking at isolated facts is what often goes wrong and do comes from a place of racism.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Pointing out facts isn't the issue, drawing false conclusions from looking at isolated facts is what often goes wrong and do comes from a place of racism.

So what about drawing a conclusion about something based on past facts?

Do you remember how when Hilary was shown shaking hands with a guy with the word "white" tatooed on him..you assumed the guy was racist for doing that. We didn't really know anything else(that I can recall) except for the fact he had that tatoo. Can you remind me why you assumed it was racist? Were you not looking to the past and extrapolating that he was most likely racist based on the actions of others?

Or what about how blacks automatically assume if a white cop kills a black guy..that the cop did it because he was racist? Because of the color of the cops skin they assumed it was racism. An investigation hadn't even been done, etc. we'd had none of that, so all we knew is a white cop shot and killed a black man. It was assumed racism. When the evidence was looked at and a court decided the cop was not guilty..people assumed it was due to racism. Or at least black people did.

If one side can't assume then the other side shouldn't be able to assume things either, right? Since looking at the total number of cops in the country and look at the total number of cops that kill blacks for no reason..those would most definitely be considered isolated incidents and not the norm. Yet I get the feeling you will somehow justify it for one side, but not for the other.

I don't remember what I said at the time about that case in particular, but my recent post was not about having absolute certainty in one's conclusions, it was about drawing certainly false conclusions because of the exclusions of important context when evaluating a situation. That is, assuming a racist motivation for a knuckle tattoo stating "white" is extremely probable, it's not 100% certain, but then again, nothing actually is.

On the other hand, disregarding whatever I may have said at the time, I do not think that we should condemn the man or Hillary and form a mob to punish them or anything...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't remember what I said at the time about that case in particular, but my recent post was not about having absolute certainty in one's conclusions, it was about drawing certainly false conclusions because of the exclusions of important context when evaluating a situation. That is, assuming a racist motivation for a knuckle tattoo stating "white" is extremely probable, it's not 100% certain, but then again, nothing actually is.

On the other hand, disregarding whatever I may have said at the time, I do not think that we should condemn the man or Hillary and form a mob to punish them or anything...

I'm at least glad you agree drawing false conclusions due to isolated incidents is wrong.

Well, I didn't say incidents, but sure, though I think everyone agrees with that, the question is just what do we consider isolated facts.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Pointing out facts isn't the issue, drawing false conclusions from looking at isolated facts is what often goes wrong and do comes from a place of racism.

And Robtard will state that just because 2 random strangers in your house wrecked the place, doesn't mean all 25 were bad. It's perfectly reasonable to let 25 strangers in your house if they're escaping some form of lunacy, I mean, just because 2 wrecked your house doesn't mean they're all bad or that immigration is bad.

That's from another thread, but yes, if you let 25 strangers into your house and 2 behave badly and you then start claiming all 25 are bad you are making a mistake, since 23 have behaved well.

Now, like discussed in the thread, the 25 strangers analogy does not fit the current European situation along the points that you want to discuss, it only illustrates the fallacious thinking of extending single instances to whole groups.

Rob must have really riled you up having to follow us around trying to bring up that argument days later though...

I was riled because he avoided my question and you appear to be fighting his battles for him.

You're right, happened in another thread.