Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 151: It is okay to be of any race or any color.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Lopen posted...

His "even then I don't know" portion of his post was used as a transitional statement to not make the concession that it could be used "as a slur" because he does not think it is one, by the way.

Why do I need to explain literally every element of the post for you to understand any of it.

"It would take extreme context to be racially offensive. Like in American History X pouring milk over a (in this case Native American) and exclaiming now you can be a White girl, Pocahontas.

Even then I dunno. "

It's right there. You're projecting again in order to say you're right.
---

Yeah, you're right, one extreme example he gave being the only way he could ever find it offensive in any situation is totally the natural way to read that post. My mistake.
---

Lopen posted...

Yeah, you're right, one extreme example he gave being the only way he could ever find it offensive in any situation is totally the natural way to read that post. My mistake.

Yes, it is, because it's literally THE EXAMPLE HE GAVE

You'd have a point if I made up the example

But it's literally the example he chose.

It is your mistake, sorry.

One would obviously expect other examples to be about that extreme, not much less
---

Me calling you on being a dishonest arguer on this topic has turned you into a goddamn idiot. Bring back the old SEP please.
---

"I'd only do it if they paid me $100,000."

Lopen: "Clearly, I'm right and he'd do it if they gave him $1,000. You're an idiot for not understanding that."
---

Yeah because he definitely used the word only there.
---

Lopen posted...

Me calling you on being a dishonest arguer on this topic has turned you into a goddamn idiot. Bring back the old SEP please.

In what world am I the idiot for not literally projecting my own thoughts on the context when he GAVE THE FUCKING CONTEXT

If he gives one example, and it's a 10 on the extreme count, you can't call me an idiot for thinking an example that would be 4 on the extreme count would not qualify to him.
---

Like, let's just ask what we really want to ask

Corrik, is there any case where calling someone "Pocahontas" entirely because they're Native American, could be considered offensive. (Not a slur, just offensive) For instance, if someone said, "Good work, Pocahontas" to some Native American woman they'd just met who they felt they did a good job.

If you say no, then okay, I misunderstood that. I'm fine with that. That makes me like 10% off of what you're saying instead of like 80% off.
---

Lopen posted...

Yeah because he definitely used the word only there.

Okay, let's change it for you

"I'd do it if they paid me $100,000."

Lopen: "Clearly, I'm right and he'd do it if they gave him $1,000. You're an idiot for not understanding that."

You are arguing that this is an appropriate and obvious conclusion to draw

Admit you're just as bad as the rest of us about wanting to win arguments and being dishonest
---

I'm not.

And for the record, I think in most cases "the rest of us" isn't you.

But you're being a goddamn idiot here.
---

"I'd do it if they paid me $100,000."

Lopen: "Clearly, I'm right and he'd do it if they gave him $1,000. You're an idiot for not understanding that."

So you literally see nothing wrong or dishonest with doing that?
---

Because what you did is equate believing that

"It would take extreme context to be racially offensive. Like in American History X pouring milk over a (in this case Native American) and exclaiming now you can be a White girl, Pocahontas. "

this might be racially offensive to believing that

"For instance, if someone said, "Good work, Pocahontas" to some Native American woman they'd just met who they felt they did a good job. "

is racially offensive.

If you can't see what's dishonest about that, then you're not aware of what you're doing in the least.
---

I would do this for $100000 today.

Even then I dunno.

It is extremely a stretch to be something you'd do for $1000. I could see doing it for $1000, but it would take the right context. But, for it to be something I'd do for $1000 all the time? Dunno. That takes an insinuation or allegation and needs to have an underlying basis. It is a stretch but eventually it could be something that we could do for $1000 regularly.

How I read the post, inserting the $100000 analogy

Again, I could be off base, but like, quoting just what you did screams dishonest to me. Like "Even then I dunno" was clearly a transitional phrase and not a modifier to "here's this extreme situation but even that extreme situation I'm not sure on" like you were implying it was with your quoting.
---

the way corrik constructed his post didn't make it seem like he was entirely agreeing with lopen to me. like paraphrased he said "it would take a super extreme example, and even then i'm not sure. but yeah it can be racist." for lopen to then go "see? he agreed with me that it can be racist!" is... i dunno, it's kind of a gray area. i'd totally agree with lopen if corrik had said "sure, it can be racist. here's a normal example."

maybe corrik can rephrase his post to end this argument.

edit: though apparently i also misinterpreted the "i dunno" thing. but yeah, the gist of my post remains the same.
---

Lopen posted...

It is extremely a stretch to be something you'd do for $1000. I could see doing it for $1000

That right there is being dishonest, because you literally went from the example of $100,000 to just assuming that his bottom is $1,000 when he literally gave no context for you to think that
---

His entire bottom paragraph was about $1000. That's the context. Racial slur = $1000.
---

Basically, if the only example for what somebody gives as offensive is

"It would take extreme context to be racially offensive. Like in American History X pouring milk over a (in this case Native American) and exclaiming now you can be a White girl, Pocahontas. "

it seems extremely weird to think they'd also find

"For instance, if someone said, "Good work, Pocahontas" to some Native American woman they'd just met who they felt they did a good job. "

offensive. Because there's no context to make you believe his acceptance criteria is THAT large other than what you personally believe and are projecting.

Corrik's example could make you believe... Okay, his range is 80-100

You're assuming his range is 20-100 based on nothing
---

Lopen posted...

His entire bottom paragraph was about $1000. That's the context. Racial slur = $1000.

What? How? He considers a racial slur higher than the $100,000 example.

You're doing major projecting, here.

Like, his example was $100,000

To him, a racial slur is $200,000
---

Nah. If it was a racial slur it's less of a stretch to find it offensive in a context, not more. If it was more offensive by default you wouldn't need as ridiculous an example.
---

Like here's an example.

Say there's a black dude, and I dunno, the situation is we're discussing if the word "bro" is offensive to a black person. Corrik lays out this situation where a dude walks up to a guy with a KKK hat, and says "bro" and says "yeah that would be offensive"

Now, if bro to him were the same as the n word (ie they're both considered racial slurs) do you think he'd need a KKK hat in his example?
---

Lopen posted...

Nah. If it was a racial slur it's less of a stretch to find it offensive in a context, not more. If it was more offensive by default you wouldn't need as ridiculous an example.

Reread his post, because you read it wrong.

He's saying under context such as the example, it could be racially offensive.

But he struggles to find any context where it could be a racial slur.

"It is extremely a stretch. A racially offensive comment or an insult, sure with the right context. But, an actual slur? Dunno. That takes an insinuation or allegation and needs to have an underlying basis. It is a stretch but something that could eventually become one."

He's saying it could be racially offensive in the right context, but it's an extreme stretch to consider it a slur. Thus, he's implying a slur is a step beyond said context.
---

Lopen posted...

Now, if bro to him were the same as the n word (ie they're both considered racial slurs) do you think he'd need a KKK hat in his example?

You're... Literally agreeing with me?

He doesn't consider just calling a Native American woman "Pocahontas" as racist. Thus, he included the pouring milk/"Now you're white" in his example, because that was needed to make it racist to him.

You literally just posted an example where the lesser offense (just saying "bro") is not considered racist without the extra extreme stuff (the KKK hat)

So by your example, he doesn't consider "Pocahontas" racist without the milk/taunting
---

Lopen posted...

Like, let's just ask what we really want to ask

Corrik, is there any case where calling someone "Pocahontas" entirely because they're Native American, could be considered offensive. (Not a slur, just offensive) For instance, if someone said, "Good work, Pocahontas" to some Native American woman they'd just met who they felt they did a good job.

If you say no, then okay, I misunderstood that. I'm fine with that. That makes me like 10% off of what you're saying instead of like 80% off.

No. I do not believe Pocahontas in the use you described in this can be racially offensive. I view the term Pocahontas as a princess. I think of it is an endearing term to someone when said earnestly.

For it to be racially offensive to me, the comment "Good work, Pocahontas!" Has to be sarcastic, sneer, or on all ends considered said in a negative connotation or be continued harassment against said woman.

I would argue it could fall into sexually harassing before racially offensive in earnest usage towards a woman.
---

Well, there we go.

Can you atleast admit that what Corrik means isn't always crystal clear, now? >_>
---

Alright

Now I'll admit I was wrong on that part (and also that I disagree with Corrik on that particular element). It's not projecting though. I do think the rest of his post that you didn't quote lines up more with what I was saying.
---

It's not crystal clear. Never said anyone is crystal clear.

I think I was like 10% off and you guys were like 80% off, though, which is the problem. I'm completely fine being 10% off because that was a fairly minor part of the argument that I would've not likely have felt a need to clarify to begin with as it's sorta in "agree to disagree, whatever" state.
---

It's definitely projecting a little bit, because I read it in a more "negative" way and he meant it more in that way, whereas you read it in a more "positive" way because that's how you view the subject, but that wasn't what he meant.

I project, too, but that's an example of how you do it as well.
---

Lopen posted...

It's not crystal clear. Never said anyone is crystal clear.

I think I was like 10% off and you guys were like 80% off, though, which is the problem. I'm completely fine being 10% off because that was a fairly minor part of the argument that I would've not likely have felt a need to clarify to begin with as it's sorta in "agree to disagree, whatever" state.

To be fair, I think it's a little unfair to say you were only 10% off to us being 80% off when we literally just had a situation where I read Corrik's post correctly and you did not. And you blatantly accused me of being an idiot over it. >_>
---

The difference is I always project positively onto literally everyone because I'm assuming they're saying something reasonable by default because people on the board are reasonable more often than not. On the whole that ends up closer to the mark unless you're talking with like Ulti on one of his wacky rants.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

To be fair, I think it's a little unfair to say you were only 10% off to us being 80% off when we literally just had a situation where I read Corrik's post correctly and you did not. >_>

I misread 1 or 2

You misread well over 8

I think it's fair
---

Lopen posted...

The difference is I always project positively onto literally everyone because I'm assuming they're saying something reasonable by default because people on the board are reasonable more often than not. On the whole that ends up closer to the mark unless you're talking with like Ulti on one of his wacky rants.

Corrik is rarely toward that positive light, though.

Rock, yeah, you had a point on him. But Corrik tends to lean more in the other direction.
---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

To be fair, I think it's a little unfair to say you were only 10% off to us being 80% off when we literally just had a situation where I read Corrik's post correctly and you did not. >_>

I misread 1 or 2

You misread well over 8

I think it's fair

You THINK I misread over 8, just like you THOUGHT I misread this one
---

StealThisSheen posted...

You THINK I misread over 8, just like you THOUGHT I misread this one

I know you did because Corrik isn't arguing any of my other 8 bullet points on him are wrong, and the majority of the discussion took place outside of this narrow point, and you did several times.
---

Also I don't consider Corrik to be less reasonable than Rock on the whole

He says more things I disagree with. It's not the same thing.
---

Lopen posted...

The difference is I always project positively onto literally everyone because I'm assuming they're saying something reasonable by default because people on the board are reasonable more often than not.

like i said before, in the case of the politics containment topic i think that's stupid because 90% of the conservatives posting there are not saying something reasonable 90% of the time.

not talking about corrik as he's probably the most reasonable out of the conservatives posting regularly there, but the likes of ulti, MWC and sephyg? not sure why the fuck you would "assume they're saying something reasonable" when that's rarely the case.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Well, there we go.

Can you atleast admit that what Corrik means isn't always crystal clear, now? >_>

At what point when in topic and topic over and over I am continually saying you are twisting my words, saying I said shit I didn't, or misconstruing or not responding to what I am saying do you stop.and think... Maybe he keeps saying this because I am not properly reading what he is saying?
---

I think Sephy says a decent amount of reasonable stuff, it's just veiled in shitposting that's generally not worth trying to penetrate.

He's basically the conservative version of Foolmo

That being said, being the conservative version of Foolmo, I know not much of value is said there pretty often-- you only think I give him more of a benefit of a doubt than I do because when I'm not I just ignore him outright.

And Ulti and MWC are even more rare than him, for the record. Corrik's nothing like any of the three though.
---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

You THINK I misread over 8, just like you THOUGHT I misread this one

I know you did because Corrik isn't arguing any of my other 8 bullet points on him are wrong, and the majority of the discussion took place outside of this narrow point, and you did several times.

He didn't argue any of them, somebody else did and then Corrik only chimed in when he was asked directly. That's not a point in your favor like you're trying to say it is.

It comes down to the fact that my argument, just as I stated, was that Corrik was arguing that Pocahontas can't be racially offensive in the ways we were arguing. Corrik said he never said that, which made you go "Yeah, I could see what he meant, it was clear, you are all idiots."

But then we literally just had a situation where I went "See? Corrik doesn't think it's racially offensive in the way you said (which was the way we were arguing in the other topic)" and you went "Yes he does, you're a goddamn idiot."

Then you asked Corrik and he actually went "No, I don't."

Which goes to show that even though Corrik said "I never said it's not ever racially offensive," in practice, his arguing was very much suggesting that because our examples (My Pocahontas/Jackie Chan/etc. ones) were ones he kept saying weren't racially offensive.

Which means my initial point was closer to being right than yours was, because he just confirmed that it takes a hell of a lot for him to consider it racially offensive

So we have an example, in this very topic, where how I had been reading Corrik's posts (about the main thing I was arguing about in the first place) was correct, and how you were reading them was wrong

But somehow you're still trying to call me an idiot
---

Lopen posted...

I think Sephy says a decent amount of reasonable stuff, it's just veiled in shitposting that's generally not worth trying to penetrate.

He's basically the conservative version of Foolmo

That being said, being the conservative version of Foolmo, I know not much of value is said there pretty often-- you only think I give him more of a benefit of a doubt than I do because when I'm not I just ignore him outright.

And Ulti and MWC are even more rare than him, for the record. Corrik's nothing like any of the three though.

i mean, i probably misunderstand you but this seems to contradict your "i always assume everyone is saying something reasonable by default" claim >_>
---

StealThisSheen posted...

But somehow you're still trying to call me an idiot

I called you an idiot for quoting the post selectively as you did and then having the audacity to say I'm being dishonest when the meat of it was basically saying what I was saying in other bullet points

Like yeah I was off on that one thing-- so what? Trying to say that one thing was the majority of what you and Corrik were discussing when I just saw a topic where Corrik had to reclarify himself about 4000 times when you could have EASILY just asked him bluntly the hypothetical I did to get a clear concise answer to how he felt in one post-- at best it's a bad memory and at worst it's dishonest revisionist's history to win an argument.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i mean, i probably misunderstand you but this seems to contradict your "i always assume everyone is saying something reasonable by default" claim >_>

Please don't do that. <_<

There is a difference between disregarding shitposting and disregarding people you don't like
---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

But somehow you're still trying to call me an idiot

I called you an idiot for quoting the post selectively as you did and then having the audacity to say I'm being dishonest when the meat of it was basically saying what I was saying in other bullet points

Like yeah I was off on that one thing-- so what? Trying to say that one thing was the majority of what you and Corrik were discussing when I just saw a topic where Corrik had to reclarify himself about 4000 times when you could have EASILY just asked him bluntly the hypothetical I did to get a clear concise answer to how he felt in one post-- at best it's a bad memory and at worst it's dishonest revisionist's history to win an argument.

How is it revisionist when it's CORRECT?

He just confirmed in this topic that what I was arguing was correct. I was going "It's racist when" and he was going "No it's not."

And he just confirmed the "No it's not" to you. Which is what I said. I said "Corrik said that's not racist."

I may have used hyperbole a bit, but so have you, clearly, so...
---

StealThisSheen posted...

How is it revisionist when it's CORRECT?

Corrik posted...

At what point when in topic and topic over and over I am continually saying you are twisting my words, saying I said shit I didn't, or misconstruing or not responding to what I am saying do you stop.and think... Maybe he keeps saying this because I am not properly reading what he is saying?

---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

How is it revisionist when it's CORRECT?

Corrik posted...

At what point when in topic and topic over and over I am continually saying you are twisting my words, saying I said shit I didn't, or misconstruing or not responding to what I am saying do you stop.and think... Maybe he keeps saying this because I am not properly reading what he is saying?

Oh my god are you pulling a Trump and saying Corrik didn't literally just say what he said

Corrik isn't even reading what we're arguing, he posted a gut response to my post
---

Lopen posted...

There is a difference between disregarding shitposting and disregarding people you don't like

who was talking about disregarding people you don't like?
---

You didn't.

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik is rarely toward that positive light, though.

Rock, yeah, you had a point on him. But Corrik tends to lean more in the other direction.

He did, though.

And I'd argue treating every post Sephg makes as a shitpost would be that as well.
---

Lopen posted...

You didn't.

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik is rarely toward that positive light, though.

Rock, yeah, you had a point on him. But Corrik tends to lean more in the other direction.

He did, though.

And I'd argue treating every post Sephg makes as a shitpost would be that as well.

How do you get "I disregard him because I don't like him" out of "Corrik tends to lean in the other direction"

If I didn't like him to the point of disregarding him, I'd have blocked him by now. Being aware of the direction somebody tends to lean in arguments is not disregarding them.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik isn't even reading what we're arguing, he posted a gut response to my post

I'm saying what he described is an accurate way to describe the last topic, so it's not accurate to say "you understood what he was saying" because, no, you didn't. Or at least, you tried to paint what he was saying as inaccurate to what his thoughts were. Otherwise why would he keep repeating himself and say you're misrepresenting what he said.
---

Lopen posted...

He's basically the conservative version of Foolmo

foolmo is the conservative version of foolmo
---

Lopen posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik isn't even reading what we're arguing, he posted a gut response to my post

I'm saying what he described is an accurate way to describe the last topic, so it's not accurate to say "you understood what he was saying" because, no, you didn't. Or at least, you tried to paint what he was saying as inaccurate to what his thoughts were. Otherwise why would he keep repeating himself and say you're misrepresenting what he said.

Again, what leg do you have to stand on saying your way is more accurate than mine when I just read his post correctly and you did not? Because he said I read his posts wrong? He also said he never said "Calling a Native American Pocahontas based solely on race isn't racist," and yet he just confirmed he thinks that.
---