7 Habits of Highly Affected Racialists

[Rhea]

~shrug~ okay, whatever. That OP says something different from what you're claiming it says. Some people can see that, some will not. Irrespective of whether I think I fit in it or not, that just isn't what _it_ says.

I'm claiming it says something about white people. Are you saying it doesn't?

Are you claiming it says something about ALL white people or just a subset?

 

[dismal]

I'm claiming it says something about white people. Are you saying it doesn't?

Are you claiming it says something about ALL white people or just a subset?

I'm saying:

1) It says something about white people
2) You and Davka say it does Not apply to All White People
3) That makes you and Davka Highly Affected racialists, according to Davka, #6.

 

[Davka]

Nope.

This has been explained and re-explained, but you folks don't want to let go of your delusions. Have fun with that.

So, what of the following didn't happen in that thread about whiteness:

1) Athena said something about white people
2) You said it did not apply to you

1) Athena said something about a specific subset of white people. She was careful to define that subset clearly.
2) I agreed with what she said about that subset of white people.

I find it mildly amusing that you are using a strawman argument to argue that strawman arguments are somehow OK. Here's how the "not all X" strawman works:

Joe: There are racists among the police, who all too often get away with racist aggression. We need to do something about this.
Fred: How dare you say that! Not all police are racist!
Joe: I didn't say they were. I said some police are racists, and the police departments don't do anything about it.
Fred: So you think all police departments are full of closet racists, huh? Not all police are racist! *runs off to find statistics to prove that not all police are racist*
Joe, patiently: You don't need to prove your point, I agree with you. Not all police are racists. But the police culture allows those cops who are racist to get away with it, far too often.
Fred (returning with statistics) : See, I told you not all police are racist! And what about black cops, you can't call them racist!
Joe: No, no, no - nobody is claiming that all cops are racist! Don't you get it?
Fred: Why should I listen to you? I just proved you wrong!
Joe: . . .​

This is the game you're playing, dismal. It's transparent, it's shallow, and it's dishonest. You can stop now.

 

[ksen]

I don't think he can stop.

 

[Davka]

I don't think he can stop.

Internet Tourrette's?

 

[dismal]

So, what of the following didn't happen in that thread about whiteness:

1) Athena said something about white people
2) You said it did not apply to you

1) Athena said something about a specific subset of white people. She was careful to define that subset clearly.
2) I agreed with what she said about that subset of white people.

I find it mildly amusing that you are using a strawman argument to argue that strawman arguments are somehow OK. Here's how the "not all X" strawman works:

Joe: There are racists among the police, who all too often get away with racist aggression. We need to do something about this.
Fred: How dare you say that! Not all police are racist!
Joe: I didn't say they were. I said some police are racists, and the police departments don't do anything about it.
Fred: So you think all police departments are full of closet racists, huh? Not all police are racist! *runs off to find statistics to prove that not all police are racist*
Joe, patiently: You don't need to prove your point, I agree with you. Not all police are racists. But the police culture allows those cops who are racist to get away with it, far too often.
Fred (returning with statistics) : See, I told you not all police are racist! And what about black cops, you can't call them racist!
Joe: No, no, no - nobody is claiming that all cops are racist! Don't you get it?
Fred: Why should I listen to you? I just proved you wrong!
Joe: . . .​

This is the game you're playing, dismal. It's transparent, it's shallow, and it's dishonest. You can stop now.

The problem arises because you have defined assuming comments made about white people to only apply to certain white people as Highly Affected Racialist behavior.

So when you say a comment about white people is only "about a specific subset of white people" you are violating your own Rule #6.

Don't blame me, I'm not the one that made up the rule that you're not allowed to say Not All White People when someone makes a comment about white people.

 

[Rhea]

Are you claiming it says something about ALL white people or just a subset?

I'm saying:

1) It says something about white people
2) You and Davka say it does Not apply to All White People
3) That makes you and Davka Highly Affected racialists, according to Davka, #6.

Please answer the direct clear question.
Do you believe #1 says something about
A) ALL white people? Or
B) a sub group of white people?

Please answer A or B.
Do you believe Athena's OP says something about A) ALL white people or B) a subset of white people?
Please answer A or B.

There are only two choices, either you think it makes a claim about ALL white people or you don't. Which is it?
(and yes, we noticed that you found this easy question too uncomfortable to answer, and yes, we are amused.)

 

[Davka]

The problem arises because you have defined assuming comments made about white people to only apply to certain white people as Highly Affected Racialist behavior.

No.

I'm certain that you are fully aware that you are constructing a strawman, and are pretending not to understand. You're not that stupid.

What I defined in the list was a habit of taking any comment about a group in power - whites, men, the wealthy - and constructing a strawman response. The strawman pretends that the original argument was about ALL of the people in the group (an absurd argument), and then handily knocks over this strawman. Strawmen are easy to defeat, because nobody is standing behind them.

Now you're doing the same thing here. You are taking habit #6, which is about the construction of this type of strawman, and pretending that it's about something else.

So when you say a comment about white people is only "about a specific subset of white people" you are violating your own Rule #6.

No. You're not stupid, so I'll explain for the benefit of the peanut gallery. You already know you're full of shit, but not all those reading know you well enough to understand that about you.

Rule #6 says that, whenever someone makes a statement about a problem with white cops, or white judges, or anything else, you COUNTER that argument by pretending that the statement was about ALL X. Then you defeat the strawman argument (an argument which nobody actually made) that ALL X are _____, and claim victory.

This rule DOES NOT APPLY to the following situation:

Mary: Some X are Y.
Keisha: I agree, some X are Y. In fact, I happen to belong to group X, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that some are Y.​

The reason that rule #6 does not apply here is that Keisha is not misrepresenting Mary's argument. She is not claiming that Mary said "all x are y," but rather agreeing that not all x are y. No strawman has been constructed.

Here is another example of a strawman argument:

Don't blame me, I'm not the one that made up the rule that you're not allowed to say Not All White People when someone makes a comment about white people.

And neither am I. I made up no rule. I merely observed that a common tactic on the part of racialists is to deliberately misrepresent an opponent's comment, and then attack the misrepresentation (strawman). Just as you are doing here.

Thank you for this demonstration of intellectual dishonesty in the service of desperation. You have correctly demonstrated habit #6, which appears to be particularly entrenched in your case. Maybe you should take up smoking instead?

 

[Canard DuJour]

4. Appeal to (pseudo)Science. The attempt to “prove” scientifically and/or logically that minority races are inherently inferior goes back as far as racism itself. Despite the fact that every single scientific justification for racism has been debunked numerous times, Highly Affected Racialists continue to return to this well, press-ganging genetics, statistics, and anthropology (among others) into the service of their bankrupt worldview.

4a. They insist that people disputing said "science" know in their hearts that it's true and only dispute it out of "political correctness"

That one really pisses me off.

 

[Davka]

4. Appeal to (pseudo)Science. The attempt to “prove” scientifically and/or logically that minority races are inherently inferior goes back as far as racism itself. Despite the fact that every single scientific justification for racism has been debunked numerous times, Highly Affected Racialists continue to return to this well, press-ganging genetics, statistics, and anthropology (among others) into the service of their bankrupt worldview.

4a. They insist that people disputing said "science" know in their hearts that it's true and only dispute it out of "political correctness"

That one really pisses me off.

No it doesn't. You're only saying that because you're afraid to say what you really think.

 

[Rhea]

4. Appeal to (pseudo)Science. The attempt to “prove” scientifically and/or logically that minority races are inherently inferior goes back as far as racism itself. Despite the fact that every single scientific justification for racism has been debunked numerous times, Highly Affected Racialists continue to return to this well, press-ganging genetics, statistics, and anthropology (among others) into the service of their bankrupt worldview.

4a. They insist that people disputing said "science" know in their hearts that it's true and only dispute it out of "political correctness"

That one really pisses me off.

Oh, yes.

 

[Canard DuJour]

4a. They insist that people disputing said "science" know in their hearts that it's true and only dispute it out of "political correctness"

That one really pisses me off.

No it doesn't. You're only saying that because you're afraid to say what you really think.

Aaaaarghhh!!

 

[dismal]

No.

I'm certain that you are fully aware that you are constructing a strawman, and are pretending not to understand. You're not that stupid.

What I defined in the list was a habit of taking any comment about a group in power - whites, men, the wealthy - and constructing a strawman response. The strawman pretends that the original argument was about ALL of the people in the group (an absurd argument), and then handily knocks over this strawman. Strawmen are easy to defeat, because nobody is standing behind them.

Now you're doing the same thing here. You are taking habit #6, which is about the construction of this type of strawman, and pretending that it's about something else.

So when you say a comment about white people is only "about a specific subset of white people" you are violating your own Rule #6.

No. You're not stupid, so I'll explain for the benefit of the peanut gallery. You already know you're full of shit, but not all those reading know you well enough to understand that about you.

Rule #6 says that, whenever someone makes a statement about a problem with white cops, or white judges, or anything else, you COUNTER that argument by pretending that the statement was about ALL X. Then you defeat the strawman argument (an argument which nobody actually made) that ALL X are _____, and claim victory.

This rule DOES NOT APPLY to the following situation:

Mary: Some X are Y.
Keisha: I agree, some X are Y. In fact, I happen to belong to group X, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that some are Y.​

The reason that rule #6 does not apply here is that Keisha is not misrepresenting Mary's argument. She is not claiming that Mary said "all x are y," but rather agreeing that not all x are y. No strawman has been constructed.

Here is another example of a strawman argument:

Don't blame me, I'm not the one that made up the rule that you're not allowed to say Not All White People when someone makes a comment about white people.

And neither am I. I made up no rule. I merely observed that a common tactic on the part of racialists is to deliberately misrepresent an opponent's comment, and then attack the misrepresentation (strawman). Just as you are doing here.

Thank you for this demonstration of intellectual dishonesty in the service of desperation. You have correctly demonstrated habit #6, which appears to be particularly entrenched in your case. Maybe you should take up smoking instead?

Well, good, I'm glad we agree that you did in fact do the "Not All White People" thing in the whiteness thread. I was worried about you were slipping into denialism.

 

[Davka]

No.

I'm certain that you are fully aware that you are constructing a strawman, and are pretending not to understand. You're not that stupid.

What I defined in the list was a habit of taking any comment about a group in power - whites, men, the wealthy - and constructing a strawman response. The strawman pretends that the original argument was about ALL of the people in the group (an absurd argument), and then handily knocks over this strawman. Strawmen are easy to defeat, because nobody is standing behind them.

Now you're doing the same thing here. You are taking habit #6, which is about the construction of this type of strawman, and pretending that it's about something else.


No. You're not stupid, so I'll explain for the benefit of the peanut gallery. You already know you're full of shit, but not all those reading know you well enough to understand that about you.

Rule #6 says that, whenever someone makes a statement about a problem with white cops, or white judges, or anything else, you COUNTER that argument by pretending that the statement was about ALL X. Then you defeat the strawman argument (an argument which nobody actually made) that ALL X are _____, and claim victory.

This rule DOES NOT APPLY to the following situation:

Mary: Some X are Y.
Keisha: I agree, some X are Y. In fact, I happen to belong to group X, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that some are Y.​

The reason that rule #6 does not apply here is that Keisha is not misrepresenting Mary's argument. She is not claiming that Mary said "all x are y," but rather agreeing that not all x are y. No strawman has been constructed.

Here is another example of a strawman argument:

Don't blame me, I'm not the one that made up the rule that you're not allowed to say Not All White People when someone makes a comment about white people.

And neither am I. I made up no rule. I merely observed that a common tactic on the part of racialists is to deliberately misrepresent an opponent's comment, and then attack the misrepresentation (strawman). Just as you are doing here.

Thank you for this demonstration of intellectual dishonesty in the service of desperation. You have correctly demonstrated habit #6, which appears to be particularly entrenched in your case. Maybe you should take up smoking instead?

Well, good, I'm glad we agree that you did in fact do the "Not All White People" thing in the whiteness thread. I was worried about you were slipping into denialism.

OK, now you're just trolling.

 

[fromderinside]

Aaaaarghhh!!

Now. Isn't that better? Say thanks to Davka or Rhea.

 

[dismal]

No.

I'm certain that you are fully aware that you are constructing a strawman, and are pretending not to understand. You're not that stupid.

What I defined in the list was a habit of taking any comment about a group in power - whites, men, the wealthy - and constructing a strawman response. The strawman pretends that the original argument was about ALL of the people in the group (an absurd argument), and then handily knocks over this strawman. Strawmen are easy to defeat, because nobody is standing behind them.

Now you're doing the same thing here. You are taking habit #6, which is about the construction of this type of strawman, and pretending that it's about something else.


No. You're not stupid, so I'll explain for the benefit of the peanut gallery. You already know you're full of shit, but not all those reading know you well enough to understand that about you.

Rule #6 says that, whenever someone makes a statement about a problem with white cops, or white judges, or anything else, you COUNTER that argument by pretending that the statement was about ALL X. Then you defeat the strawman argument (an argument which nobody actually made) that ALL X are _____, and claim victory.

This rule DOES NOT APPLY to the following situation:

Mary: Some X are Y.
Keisha: I agree, some X are Y. In fact, I happen to belong to group X, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that some are Y.​

The reason that rule #6 does not apply here is that Keisha is not misrepresenting Mary's argument. She is not claiming that Mary said "all x are y," but rather agreeing that not all x are y. No strawman has been constructed.

Here is another example of a strawman argument:

Don't blame me, I'm not the one that made up the rule that you're not allowed to say Not All White People when someone makes a comment about white people.

And neither am I. I made up no rule. I merely observed that a common tactic on the part of racialists is to deliberately misrepresent an opponent's comment, and then attack the misrepresentation (strawman). Just as you are doing here.

Thank you for this demonstration of intellectual dishonesty in the service of desperation. You have correctly demonstrated habit #6, which appears to be particularly entrenched in your case. Maybe you should take up smoking instead?

Well, good, I'm glad we agree that you did in fact do the "Not All White People" thing in the whiteness thread. I was worried about you were slipping into denialism.

OK, now you're just trolling.

No, I think we officially established that your "Not All White People" rule is for shit.

Sometimes people say things about white people where "Not All White People" is a reasonable and accurate response, so attempting to head off discussion of whether the initial statement was valid by having rules that you can't say things like "Not All White People" is harmful and destructive to the free exchange of ideas.

If people want to make sweeping generalizations about White people (or any group) people should be free to call them on it, not be bullied into silence.

 

[laughing dog]

No.

I'm certain that you are fully aware that you are constructing a strawman, and are pretending not to understand. You're not that stupid.

What I defined in the list was a habit of taking any comment about a group in power - whites, men, the wealthy - and constructing a strawman response. The strawman pretends that the original argument was about ALL of the people in the group (an absurd argument), and then handily knocks over this strawman. Strawmen are easy to defeat, because nobody is standing behind them.

Now you're doing the same thing here. You are taking habit #6, which is about the construction of this type of strawman, and pretending that it's about something else.


No. You're not stupid, so I'll explain for the benefit of the peanut gallery. You already know you're full of shit, but not all those reading know you well enough to understand that about you.

Rule #6 says that, whenever someone makes a statement about a problem with white cops, or white judges, or anything else, you COUNTER that argument by pretending that the statement was about ALL X. Then you defeat the strawman argument (an argument which nobody actually made) that ALL X are _____, and claim victory.

This rule DOES NOT APPLY to the following situation:

Mary: Some X are Y.
Keisha: I agree, some X are Y. In fact, I happen to belong to group X, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that some are Y.​

The reason that rule #6 does not apply here is that Keisha is not misrepresenting Mary's argument. She is not claiming that Mary said "all x are y," but rather agreeing that not all x are y. No strawman has been constructed.

Here is another example of a strawman argument:

Don't blame me, I'm not the one that made up the rule that you're not allowed to say Not All White People when someone makes a comment about white people.

And neither am I. I made up no rule. I merely observed that a common tactic on the part of racialists is to deliberately misrepresent an opponent's comment, and then attack the misrepresentation (strawman). Just as you are doing here.

Thank you for this demonstration of intellectual dishonesty in the service of desperation. You have correctly demonstrated habit #6, which appears to be particularly entrenched in your case. Maybe you should take up smoking instead?

Well, good, I'm glad we agree that you did in fact do the "Not All White People" thing in the whiteness thread. I was worried about you were slipping into denialism.

OK, now you're just trolling.

Now?

 

[Rhea]

Well, good, I'm glad we agree that you did in fact do the "Not All White People" thing in the whiteness thread. I was worried about you were slipping into denialism.

Nope, we have not. You still need to answer this question that you've been scared to answer perhaps because it reveals your strawman:

I'm saying:

1) It says something about white people
2) You and Davka say it does Not apply to All White People
3) That makes you and Davka Highly Affected racialists, according to Davka, #6.

Please answer the direct clear question.
Do you believe #1 says something about
A) ALL white people? Or
B) a sub group of white people?

Please answer A or B.
Do you believe Athena's OP says something about A) ALL white people or B) a subset of white people?
Please answer A or B.

There are only two choices, either you think it makes a claim about ALL white people or you don't. Which is it?
(and yes, we noticed that you found this easy question too uncomfortable to answer, and yes, we are amused.)

What's your direct answer to this clear question?

 

[Davka]

No, I think we officially established that your "Not All White People" rule is for shit.

Sometimes people say things about white people where "Not All White People" is a reasonable and accurate response, so attempting to head off discussion of whether the initial statement was valid by having rules that you can't say things like "Not All White People" is harmful and destructive to the free exchange of ideas.

Look everyone, dismal knows how to construct a strawman argument! Kick it again, dismal!

Oh, and i think you've effectively established yourself as a Highly Affected Racialist. No need to continue, you've won the prize.

 

[dismal]

No, I think we officially established that your "Not All White People" rule is for shit.

Sometimes people say things about white people where "Not All White People" is a reasonable and accurate response, so attempting to head off discussion of whether the initial statement was valid by having rules that you can't say things like "Not All White People" is harmful and destructive to the free exchange of ideas.

Look everyone, dismal knows how to construct a strawman argument! Kick it again, dismal!

Oh, and i think you've effectively established yourself as a Highly Affected Racialist. No need to continue, you've won the prize.

You should add a #8. When Highly Affected Racialists are caught breaking their own rules they lash out with personal attacks.