The Insane "Social Justice" Thread II

[jamil]

But he never heard of the continental divide in relation to the settlers? Well, I guess if you are never taught in school outside of a "select" view I can see why he never heard of it.

It’s ice cream people. It’s not the ice cream company that made it into a social statement. Calm the **** down. Jeez.

 

[mmpsteve]

I've used the N word ... as a descriptor of peoples' behavior, not as a color identifier. For the record, I've known many more white n*****s than black. And I know a lot of fine black folks whom I would never associate with the N word. Due to it's historical origin, I understand it's offensive capability, but most blacks are not N word, and some white folks are. The current hysteria over the word is almost like the C word ... Oh, wait ... that one apparently now OK

 

[Kutnupe14]

They both need to happen in concert. Neither will happen without the other also happening.

Which is more prevalent in society today? Identifying others by the color of their skin or identifying with others based upon the same?

This one.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Like G said. The dude that fired him gave us the context. The context in which he was fired gives us evidence that it wasn’t malicious. I grant that you’re right, that it’s possible that it was malicious, that the dude who fired him lied about the context, and he really did go off the rails with the n-word in somenkind of racist tirade.

Yeah. White high level guy in a big company speaking in a multirace room really wanting to kick his career to the next level goes off on a racist bent. Totally plausible.

Again, you're making assumptions you don't know. Don't try to shoehorn something into another to make the argument valid. This is the second instance, of something being assumed, without there being indication of such.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It’s ice cream people. It’s not the ice cream company that made it into a social statement. Calm the **** down. Jeez.

The parents didn't go on a rant. They didn't say they were offended. The didn't demand a name change. They thought of an alternative. The have a mixed race child, who asked questions, when he say ice cream that was half vanilla, half chocolate (i.e. white/black), and the labeling indicated that the two were opposed to to the other; "divide." A curious kid might ask why that must be. Blue Bell is free to tell them to pound sand for their request (which really would be a bad idea), but this isn't some insane SJW-ing running amok.

 

[BugI02]

Again, you're making assumptions you don't know. Don't try to shoehorn something into another to make the argument valid. This is the second instance, of something being assumed, without there being indication of such.

You mean like someone assuming people are closet racists just because they support Trump

Asking for a friend

 

[jamil]

Again, you're making assumptions you don't know. Don't try to shoehorn something into another to make the argument valid. This is the second instance, of something being assumed, without there being indication of such.

My assumptions were that what was stated in the article were accurate and factual accounts of what happened, and that you read the article.

Everything I said was accurate as identified in the article. It’s established that he’s a white male. It’s established that he’s a high level guy (PR chief). It’s obvious that it’s a big company. The article includes a bit about a meeting in which at least two black people participated. Literally every part highlighted was from the article.

My assumption was the reasonable conclusion that it’s unlikely that there was malicious intent. Given the facts listed in the article, it would be extraordinary for there to have been malicious intent. And it’s fine if you’re unaware of why that might be. I understand. But don’t confuse facts established in the article for assumptions. I actually read the article.

 

[jamil]

You mean like someone assuming people are closet racists just because they support Trump

Asking for a friend

Well, now c’mon. Kut has qualified that not to be all trump supporters, but just a subset of trump supporters. I think maybe people would stop being offended if we all just tried to be more precise in our speech. I think Trump has gotten into a lot of trouble for his informal soeech, which tends to benless precise. Gives a lot of room for people to interpret him as saying racist things. And maybe they are racist, but imprecise enough to make people wonder.

 

[Kutnupe14]

My assumptions were that what was stated in the article were accurate and factual accounts of what happened, and that you read the article.

Everything I said was accurate as identified in the article. It’s established that he’s a white male. It’s established that he’s a high level guy (PR chief). It’s obvious that it’s a big company. The article includes a bit about a meeting in which at least two black people participated. Literally every part highlighted was from the article.

My assumption was the reasonable conclusion that it’s unlikely that there was malicious intent. Given the facts listed in the article, it would be extraordinary for there to have been malicious intent. And it’s fine if you’re unaware of why that might be. I understand. But don’t confuse facts established in the article for assumptions. I actually read the article.

No, it doesn't say that at all. Go back and re-read what was wrote. In recounting the first offense, the one you seem to initially cite, there is no indication of the make up of the attendees. The second meeting where he doesn't say anything did have an unknown number black members present (the background of other attendees isn't mentioned), but he didn't saying concerning the original issue. The final offense occurred with two Black employees in HR. We have no indication who was there, nor the setting.
I'll remind you, that you proposed:

Yeah. White high level guy in a big company speaking in a multirace room really wanting to kick his career to the next level goes off on a racist bent. Totally plausible.

If you were talking about the initial instance of the offense, then we don't have the knowledge capable of proving the above is factual. And of course, neither applies to the other two instances.

 

[zippy23]

^^^^^what subset is that? Do you know them? The only racism I see is democrat supporters. I know plenty of trump supporters, none racist. I know plenty of democrats, most who are racist. They see ONLY skin color. And of course since i'm white my privilege somehow wont let me see anything! the KKK is not even measurable today and they donate to the left. how can that be? How can black unemployment and women unemployment be the lowest EVER and yet magically this guy is racist? He is so racist that he'll do things that help the people he is racist against??????? The media influences people who dont think they are influenced by the media.

 

[jamil]

No, it doesn't say that at all. Go back and re-read what was wrote. In recounting the first offense, the one you seem to initially cite, there is no indication of the make up of the attendees. The second meeting where he doesn't say anything did have an unknown number black members present (the background of other attendees isn't mentioned), but he didn't saying concerning the original issue. The final offense occurred with two Black employees in HR. We have no indication who was there, nor the setting.
I'll remind you, that you proposed:


If you were talking about the initial instance of the offense, then we don't have the knowledge capable of proving the above is factual. And of course, neither applies to the other two instances.

Well now you’re quibbling about nothing, just to be right. I assumed nothing about the facts. What I said was accurate. But let’s give you any benefit of doubt. Let’s say you’re right. Where in your interpretation of the events depicted is there room for it more probable to have been malicious?

This is the folly of trying to deconstruct everthing. It gets silly, requiring some absurd maneuvering to ignore the things that are evident in the context. Yes. It’s one of the infinite ways one could interpret the story. But the number of likely interpretations are constrained to the realities evident in the context, which the article clearly establishes.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Just slipping this one in

White House Press Sec was asked to leave a restaurant because of who she is/works for.

Since we've talked about not baking the cake here.

The Yelp page for the restaurant is full of warring 1-star and 5-star reviews from people that have never stepped foot in the state.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well now you’re quibbling about nothing, just to be right. I assumed nothing about the facts. What I said was accurate. But let’s give you any benefit of doubt. Let’s say you’re right. Where in your interpretation of the events depicted is there room for it more probable to have been malicious?

This is the folly of trying to deconstruct everthing. It gets silly, requiring some absurd maneuvering to ignore the things that are evident in the context. Yes. It’s one of the infinite ways one could interpret the story. But the number of likely interpretations are constrained to the realities evident in the context, which the article clearly establishes.

I've already said, that the notion your are proposing is the more probable. I'm just unwilling to paint it as fact. And as such the detail become relevant.

 

[KLB]

The parents didn't go on a rant. They didn't say they were offended. The didn't demand a name change. They thought of an alternative. The have a mixed race child, who asked questions, when he say ice cream that was half vanilla, half chocolate (i.e. white/black), and the labeling indicated that the two were opposed to to the other; "divide." A curious kid might ask why that must be. Blue Bell is free to tell them to pound sand for their request (which really would be a bad idea), but this isn't some insane SJW-ing running amok.

The story about the lady and her family is not ISJW material.

All of the big network agencies have picked up the story now, so we will have to see how it all plays out.

 

[Kutnupe14]

^^^^^what subset is that? Do you know them? The only racism I see is democrat supporters. I know plenty of trump supporters, none racist. I know plenty of democrats, most who are racist. They see ONLY skin color. And of course since i'm white my privilege somehow wont let me see anything! the KKK is not even measurable today and they donate to the left. how can that be? How can black unemployment and women unemployment be the lowest EVER and yet magically this guy is racist? He is so racist that he'll do things that help the people he is racist against??????? The media influences people who dont think they are influenced by the media.

You've gotta open your eyes Zip. I say that in all seriousness. Don't take this personally, but to say this, and have an honest belief in it, would almost certainly necessitate (a belief from others), that you aren't paying attention to whole world around you, and seek reinforcement only from sources you agree with.

 

[jamil]

I've already said, that the notion your are proposing is the more probable. I'm just unwilling to paint it as fact. And as such the detail become relevant.

Who presented it as fact? I said my conclusion was the only assumption. Not in terms of it being a fact, but being the most probable.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Again, you're making assumptions you don't know. Don't try to shoehorn something into another to make the argument valid. This is the second instance, of something being assumed, without there being indication of such.

Aren’t you assuming he used it maliciously?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

You've gotta open your eyes Zip. I say that in all seriousness. Don't take this personally, but to say this, and have an honest belief in it, would almost certainly necessitate (a belief from others), that you aren't paying attention to whole world around you, and seek reinforcement only from sources you agree with.

Instead of telling him he’s wrong why not give proof of how he is wrong?

Id say he’s correct, most recently the idiot Kanye coming out as supporting trump. The left made death threats over it. Is he an individual with individual opinions and perspectives, or is he part of a group which he can’t stray from without issue? Seems kinda 1800s to me

 

[jamil]

Aren’t you assuming he used it maliciously?

Well, he didn’t say the guy used it maliciously. He said that the guy could have used it maliciously, that we’re just assuming a context which makes it evident that it wasn’t malicious. And then later Kut admitted that most likely it wasn’t malicious.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Wonder if these are just coincidences... or if they really plan to get violent.