White fragility

[Preety_India]

@NOTintoxicated I've tell you that this is so funny. You gotta laugh at this thing lol. 

 

 

[Willie]

4 hours ago, NOTintoxicated said:

You can accuse everyone who sees through your flimsy arguments of strawmanning you, but it is blatantly obvious to any 3rd party observer that you should just accept the L here.

Look, does it really matter what your opinion is? It’s just an opinion. Does the fact that I agree or disagree ultimately matter? Your opinion is just one in the ultimate realization of reality as it is.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Willie

[Gesundheit]

8 hours ago, Willie said:

Look, does it really matter what your opinion is? It’s just an opinion. Does the fact that I agree or disagree ultimately matter? Your opinion is just one in the ultimate realization of reality as it is.

How dare you address the next Abraham Lincoln like that?!

[NOTintoxicated]

 

15 hours ago, Willie said:

Look, does it really matter what your opinion is? It’s just an opinion. Does the fact that I agree or disagree ultimately matter? Your opinion is just one in the ultimate realization of reality as it is.

I'm 14 and this is deep.

6 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

How dare you address the next Abraham Lincoln like that?!

My dude's so happy that somebody conjured this palpably insubstantial rebuttal in my direction. Take your wins where you can get 'em I suppose. 

19 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

I won't stoop down and reply to you again

???

Sir, hold this:

16 hours ago, Preety_India said:

@NOTintoxicated I've tell you that this is so funny. You gotta laugh at this thing lol. 

From hilarious to sad and back to hilarious again. ?

I'd prefer that this thread stay on topic, and the most relevant subject matter at this point is our young friend @Gesundheit's irresponsible claim that black people cannot possibly perpetuate systemic racism towards other black people. He seems to think that systemic racism begins and ends at interpersonal discrimination and blatant usage of slurs. One of the examples I cited to rebut this idea is the existence of black police officers patrolling in over-policed black neighborhoods and thus participating in institutionalized racism.

Black on black systemic racism can also persist when a black judge fails to sentence a black criminal to a proportionate punishment relative to their white counterparts. There are many studies that incontestably demonstrate that white criminals consistently receive lesser sentencing for committing similar crimes as people of color. 

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf

• Extensive multivariate regression analysis indicates black male offenders receive 19.1% longer federal sentences than similarly-situated white male offenders (white male offenders with similar past offenses, socioeconomic background, etc.)

When people are in positions of power, white or black, they tend to perceive people of color with a class-oriented negative bias. This classism will always disproportionately effect black people due to their perpetual state of socioeconomic hardship. 

Now apparently, our friend @Gesundheit thinks I'm merely an "ideologue" for being receptive to these nuanced truths. I'm curious what he believes his refusal to acknowledge these facts deems him to be. A non-ideologue? ?

[Gesundheit]

@NOTintoxicated Okay, I'll try one more time. And I hope that I won't regret it.

What you don't understand here is that I don't have the same mindset as you. You think that I'm here to win, because you're here to win. This me vs. them mentality means nothing to me and completely misses the point. I am here trying to communicate and understand, and you are trying to force your opinions on me. You might have perceived me as an enemy that is trying to undermine your opinions, but again, that'd be just your perception. I came here and saw some outrageous claims, so I started scrutinizing them in every way I can. Excuse me if that felt threatening, but I won't just nod my head to anything anyone says. When I present a serious argument and get strawmanned in return, I will have to assume bias and emotions. My arguments might not be 100% coherent due to my lack of information. But that doesn't mean you should resort or that it's okay to make logical fallacies, such as the strawman and the purely personal attacks. If your case is coherent, then it shouldn't require defending with all sorts of fallacies. I've overestimated Forest in this regard too. The smiley face was because the whole reply was just a huge strawman that did not address any of my arguments. I didn't want to say that explicitly, so I just posted that smiley face hoping that that'll be enough for both of you to reflect. But again, you filtered that through your winning vs. losing lens, and then launched some more personal attacks against me. If you were seriously interested in communicating your perspective, you wouldn't have made it 100% personal. The only time I saw you making serious/mature points that aren't 100% personal is in your last comment. And that's why I'm trying to re-establish this communication.

All of this (and what I said in earlier posts) is my truth and my perception of what seems to be the case to me. You might believe me or might not. And you might agree or might not. If you either disbelieve or disagree, just be mature and communicate where you see my perception flawed instead of the same childish remarks that you made earlier. Communicate with me like I'm communicating with you here. Be blunt, but not a jerk. State your truth directly. Don't shift to personal attacks, because I'm not interested in that. This blunt communication that I'm making is targeted at your communication, not on your person. If you're going to take it personally, then we're not getting anywhere anytime soon.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Gesundheit

[NOTintoxicated]

@Gesundheit Prepare to be disappointed I suppose. I would've rather had you address the substance of the discussion instead of alluding to my presumed lack of character which you have regrettably deferred to in spite of my overt attempt to refocus the conversation. A moderator will almost certainly lock this thread if I continue on this insubstantial tangent, but here we are.

As much as I would have preferred an uncompromised discussion on this matter you cannot claim that I'm culpable for making that impossible. Let's have a quick review of what's been said to one another. I will highlight sections of our interaction with red text to parse out wording that can be interpreted as inflammatory.

On 4/1/2021 at 10:29 AM, NOTintoxicated said:

@Gesundheit Apparently acknowledging the ways that POC are disadvantaged is to enact racial injustice because people will understand how POC are disadvantaged. The victim mindset this evokes will inevitably counteract all the benefits of societal awareness of these issues. I can't even.. Where does Actualized find these people?

And then you said...

On 4/1/2021 at 10:43 AM, Gesundheit said:

@NOTintoxicated You aren't seeing the validity of what I said even though I'm on the same side. So, you're basically fighting with yourself. Relax a little bit. Your silly online reactions count for nothing in the real world, and only highlight the fact that you're currently triggered and therefore blind, or that you're too closed-minded to begin with.

Your regrettable positions prompted a relatively tame expression of disdain on my end compared to your pointed snubs of my alleged "silly", "triggered", "blind" and "closed-minded" temperament. I am genuinely confused how you've managed to convince yourself that I am the sole culprit in inciting antagonism when my first response was a direct critique of your stated positions along with a snide but tame reaction ("Where does Actualized fine these people?"), whereas your response does not expand upon, or even address the relevant subject matter, and merely declares that I am trigged, blind and such while engaging in a stronger degree of antagonism.

As far as I'm concerned, your haphazard response warranted a full-on "gloves off" approach going forward. 

21 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

I am here trying to communicate and understand, and you are trying to force your opinions on me.

And with this statement I can officially dismiss you as a hysterical fanatic. This is a recurring theme I've noticed in my discourse with people. We are both defending a worldview towards one another, but because my rhetorical quirks are more provocative on account of my loftier command of the English language, predictably, I will be tactlessly deemed as the more abrasive party in spite of a comparatively proportionate degree of antagonism wielded by both parties. In what world do you genuinely find anything I've said to constitute "forcing opinions on you" as opposed to what you're doing? We are both defending a worldview if you haven't noticed...

22 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

@NOTintoxicated When I present a serious argument and get strawmanned in return, I will have to assume bias and emotions. My arguments might not be 100% coherent due to my lack of information. But that doesn't mean you should resort or that it's okay to make logical fallacies, such as the strawman and the purely personal attacks. If your case is coherent, then it shouldn't require defending with all sorts of fallacies.

This is just outright silly. You seem to have an erroneous definition of the term "strawman". A strawman argument would be one where the debater argues against a position which their opposite does not hold. You've already confirmed that I have you position accurately pegged when you agreed with literal race-realist @Epikur as he cited a "racism of low expecations" Wikipedia entry. Your position is that black people should not become black advocates because it will reinforce a victim mentality. Are you STILL going to insist that I've misinterpreted your position despite quotes like ??? this?

On 4/2/2021 at 4:37 AM, Gesundheit said:

I don't think Kevin Hart should become a black people rights activist. In fact, I agree that that's counterproductive and would hurt him and all poc.

The reason I do not feel obliged to regard your sensitivities regarding my tonal approach is because you are making blatantly dishonest assessments of my character left and right. I am certainly not strawmanning you, neither is @Forestluv.

22 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

you filtered that through your winning vs. losing lens, and then launched some more personal attacks against me. If you were seriously interested in communicating your perspective, you wouldn't have made it 100% personal. 

Yes, I undeniably took a jab at you with the following final addition to my page and a half of substantive discussion.

On 4/2/2021 at 2:44 PM, NOTintoxicated said:

On 4/1/2021 at 0:25 PM, Preety_India said:

@NOTintoxicated

Willful ignorance can be quite hilarious, and I share in your delight, albeit at the expense of my brain cells, as I'm pretty sure @Gesundheit has given me brain-cancer. Perhaps all part of his plan.

I suppose you can call this a personal attack, although this is easily the most combative bit of my very long comment. The fact that you consider this to be excessively antagonistic despite the following comments on your end STRONGLY indicates an incorrigible lack of self awareness on your part.

On 4/2/2021 at 4:37 AM, Gesundheit said:

Actually, you're just calling out your closed-mindedness, irrationality, misinterpretation, and lack of nuance. Unless you're willing to change that and show some maturity, you can excuse yourself from further embarrassment. I am having a discussion with a mature person, don't interrupt like a 5 years old keyboard warrior.

On 4/2/2021 at 3:27 PM, Gesundheit said:

@NOTintoxicated Keep fighting with yourself, you're not moving an inch in any meaningful direction. You're not demonstrating anything else except the things I said above, and I don't have time for that BS. You're an ideologue, it's just that simple. The smiley face was out of generosity of me, and really out of tiresome. I don't have time to waste on blind defensive ideologues that lack critical thinking. Of course you will again repeat your same nonsense, because you're not seeing what I'm saying, and you will attack me again like a 5 years old. But I won't stoop down and reply to you again, because I know it will be pointless. It was my mistake from the beginning to take you seriously and hope to have a mature discussion with you when it was obvious where this was heading.

You'll be hard-pressed to find anything I've said that proportionately rivals this obvious level of animosity. 

23 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Be blunt, but not a jerk. State your truth directly. Don't shift to personal attacks, because I'm not interested in that.

I don't know whether I've made a mistake in even responding at this point, it genuinely appears you're not playing with a full deck... You've single-handedly shifted the conversation away from the merited substance of the discussion in favor of this flimsy attack on my personal character, while demanding that I not shift the conversation to personal attacks. There's no way to accurately describe how undeniably vacuous this is without coming off harsh. I'm will not simply allow you to frame the pending dialogue under this blatantly dishonest assessment. I am perfectly willing to discuss the actual relevant subject matter, as I've undeniably demonstrated with my previous message, but you've demonstrated no willingness to do so yourself.

23 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

All of this (and what I said in earlier posts) is my truth and my perception of what seems to be the case to me. You might believe me or might not. And you might agree or might not. If you either disbelieve or disagree, just be mature and communicate where you see my perception flawed instead of the same childish remarks that you made earlier.

I have done so repeatedly and consistently, and will continue to do so. 

There doesn't seem to be much I can do to have a serious discussion with somebody who unironically defers to "your truth" and "my truth" appeals, as if it constitutes a legitimate argument. Anybody can dismiss any incontestable reality on this basis. 

Now finally, after addressing this disingenuous framing of the discussion I will yet again attempt to refocus this conversation on the actual subject matter so that a moderator won't rightfully lock the fucking thread.

___________________________________________________________

On 4/3/2021 at 11:42 AM, NOTintoxicated said:

I'd prefer that this thread stay on topic, and the most relevant subject matter at this point is our young friend @Gesundheit's irresponsible claim that black people cannot possibly perpetuate systemic racism towards other black people. He seems to think that systemic racism begins and ends at interpersonal discrimination and blatant usage of slurs. One of the examples I cited to rebut this idea is the existence of black police officers patrolling in over-policed black neighborhoods and thus participating in institutionalized racism.

Black on black systemic racism can also persist when a black judge fails to sentence a black criminal to a proportionate punishment relative to their white counterparts. There are many studies that incontestably demonstrate that white criminals consistently receive lesser sentencing for committing similar crimes as people of color. 

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf

• Extensive multivariate regression analysis indicates black male offenders receive 19.1% longer federal sentences than similarly-situated white male offenders (white male offenders with similar past offenses, socioeconomic background, etc.)

When people are in positions of power, white or black, they tend to perceive people of color with a class-oriented negative bias. This classism will always disproportionately effect black people due to their perpetual state of socioeconomic hardship. 

 

[Gesundheit]

4 hours ago, NOTintoxicated said:

@Gesundheit We are both defending a worldview if you haven't noticed...

You're defending a worldview, I'm not. That's what you're missing, and it's causing you confusion. The truth is that we're nowhere near each other in this particular regard. We're as far as the earth and the sky. You're an ideologue, and I'm not. But at least now you're honest about it.

You came here and started making personal attacks. Remember, I wasn't even talking to you, and I didn't even personally attack you in response. I will not allow you to spin a false narrative around me.

You came here and started making personal attacks. I only made blunt observations in response to those attacks. You are not getting away with these strawman arguments here. What I said overall could barely count as personal.

You came here and said: I can't even..Where does Actualized find these people?

That's a direct personal attack in the form of a passive aggressive question that I called out later when I said: silly online reactions.

You're not getting away with this BS. It is true that the language is to your benefit, but you're not getting away, regardless.

I said triggered and blind, and I said closed-minded and childish, but don't take things out of context. These words are not personal. Anyone can be closed-minded or triggered at any time. I can be closed-minded sometimes. You can be closed-minded sometimes. Everyone can be closed off to or triggered by certain ideas at any given time. You probably just don't understand how closed-mindedness or being triggered are not insults. They're literally just human experiences that can be observed and pointed out, and therefore fixed. But for many people they might seem like insults because those people are barely aware of their thoughts, so I understand your perception. But it's a false and a deluded perception nevertheless, and you need to fix it asap if you want to self-actualize. If you don't want to actualize yourself, that's fine too. But then keep your delusions to yourself, and don't insult others, or at least don't insult me. Or do, and then I'll expose you.

By the way, admitting ideology is, by definition, an implicit confession of closed-mindedness. So, that's a step that you could take to move forward, perhaps.

I can respond to everything you said, but I don't have much extra time to waste on you, because you're not moving forward with me.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Rilles]

Moderators? This has turned into an ideological battle. 

@Forestluv @Leo Gura @Nahm

[Nahm]

@Rilles

What’s one more advertisement for consciously creating. 

 

[NOTintoxicated]

6 hours ago, Rilles said:

Moderators? This has turned into an ideological battle. 

@Forestluv @Leo Gura @Nahm

Oooof. Swing and a miss. Maybe some other time you can redeem those good-boy tattletale points, but it won't be today. ?

An ideological battle is essentially the whole point of this thread (and this entire sub-forum), and I would have preferred an ideological discussion, but our friend @Gesundheit insists on focusing on insubstantial matters pertaining to my personal character, despite my persistent attempts to refocus the conversation.

9 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

You probably just don't understand how closed-mindedness or being triggered are not insults. They're literally just human experiences that can be observed and pointed out, and therefore fixed.  

By this logic I could claim that I'm not insulting you by saying you come off as an inbred, knuckle-dragging, pre-adolescent, slack-jawed, head injured mental patient. They're merely observations regarding your genuine likeness. This is obviously biased reasoning. The point is to discredit you by ascribing unflattering characteristics to your temperament. It's amazing how you've managed to convince yourself that calling me "triggered", "blind", "childish", "silly" and "closed-minded" doesn't fall under the category of personal attacks, whereas my comment "Where does Actualized find these people?" crosses the line. ?

9 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

You're defending a worldview, I'm not.

The worldview @Gesundheit is defending is one where the black people should not become advocates of black-rights because this evokes a victim mentality that counteracts all the benefits society gains from having awareness of these issues. For some reason, our young friend has convinced himself that his stated positions do not constitute a worldview but everyone else's do. I hope people can see the utility in pointing to his obviously deluded perspective on insubstantial matters as a means to further discredit his overall political approach.

[Gesundheit]

32 minutes ago, NOTintoxicated said:

The worldview @Gesundheit is defending is one where the black people should not become advocates of black-rights because this evokes a victim mentality that counteracts all the benefits society gains from having awareness of these issues.

I never said that, but you took my words out of context and added a bunch of your biased thoughts to them. My exact words were free from the interpretations you've added onto them. You're unaware of how you're confusing your interpretations for what I am saying. I told you many times that you lack nuance and don't understand. And you won't ever understand because you're defending a position. If you let go of your position, then you may have a chance.

32 minutes ago, NOTintoxicated said:

By this logic I could claim that I'm not insulting you by saying you come off as an inbred, knuckle-dragging, pre-adolescent, slack-jawed, head injured mental patient. They're merely observations regarding your genuine likeness.

Again, you're taking things out of context.

The observations I make can be worked on and changed on your part. Therefore, they're not insults, obviously. You're deflecting the work by committing the strawman fallacy.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Gesundheit

[NOTintoxicated]

44 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

1 hour ago, NOTintoxicated said:

The worldview @Gesundheit is defending is one where the black people should not become advocates of black-rights because this evokes a victim mentality that counteracts all the benefits society gains from having awareness of these issues. 

I never said that, but you took my words out of context and added a bunch of your biased thoughts to them. 

Oooof. ???

On 4/2/2021 at 4:37 AM, Gesundheit said:

I don't think Kevin Hart should become a black people rights activist. In fact, I agree that that's counterproductive and would hurt him and all poc.

It's as if someone argued "Taxation is theft!" and was rebutted with "Apparently taxation is theft because you did not consent to contributing to the society that supports you" and the OP says "Hey, I never said that! You're adding conclusions that tautologically follow. That's not fair!" ?

On 4/2/2021 at 3:27 PM, Gesundheit said:

I won't stoop down and reply to you again, because I know it will be pointless.

And yet here are, copium levels off the charts.

[Gesundheit]

16 hours ago, NOTintoxicated said:

It's as if someone argued "Taxation is theft!" and was rebutted with "Apparently taxation is theft because you did not consent to contributing to the society that supports you" and the OP says "Hey, I never said that! You're adding conclusions that tautologically follow. That's not fair!" 

If you're going to be so stubborn, at least cover your tracks and show some variety. Don't be that lazy, move around a little bit, use different fallacies, etc... It's quite boring to see the strawman card being played exclusively time and time again, especially when it comes from someone who claims to be playing with a full deck.

[Nyseto]

On 3/18/2021 at 7:12 AM, Preety_India said:

@Tim R

No it's not wrong. Whenever I confronted my racist white ex boyfriend on his racism towards me, he used to be terribly upset as though I committed a crime by bringing it up. 

In essence, 

White Fragility is Real. 

White people don't like to hear narratives on racism. 

It hurts their Ego and Pride. 

When someone talks to a white person about racism, it's not about blaming them or guilting them but making them understand that racism is extremely hurtful and causes harm long term to all races. 

It breeds hate against other races and minorities and makes their life miserable. 

The fact that many white people are offended by simply referring to racism, says how real White Fragility is 

White  fragility is the biggest reason why non white people can never talk about racism. 

 

White fragility is another new hogwash term coined by that nutjob woman who wrote that book. These days the whole "you're racist" phrase has been weaponized to push political agendas, narratives, and delusions. Leftists now are trying to fight racism with more racism by going full on anti-white, cramming down all these toxic ideas that white supremacy is at every corner. When a crime gets committed against a person of color, the left loves to assume that the perpetrator is white until they find out he wasn't...then they don't discuss it any further because they can't push their narrative. Last time I checked all videos on YouTube with that woman have more dislikes than likes. 

The term white fragility is just another defense mechanism to describe those who have no time for nonsense. The funny thing is, the woman who coined that term is white herself and she's virtue signaling as if she's morally superior to others. I'd say the most racist people in this country now are white liberals. They don't like black consevatives because they see themselves as their equals and don't buy into the whole "I'm oppressed" victim mindset. 

And you're over here saying "white people don't like to hear narratives on racism." That in itself is an inherently racist statement towards white people with the intent to demonize them. Like Morgan Freeman has said, "We get rid of racism by no longer constantly saying white people this...black people that...". Hell I'll make a new term: liberal fragility. Liberals who get upset when others say white fragility is hogwash.

[Tim R]

@Gesundheit

@NOTintoxicated

https://www.actualized.org/insights/why-debates-dont-work

[Preety_India]

@Nyseto by your logic nobody can have a discussion on racism. 

 

[NOTintoxicated]

1 hour ago, Tim R said:

@Gesundheit

@NOTintoxicated

https://www.actualized.org/insights/why-debates-dont-work

Was waiting for someone to pompously refer to this. As if I was ever trying to convince @Gesundheit, rather than demonstrate why his political approach is delusional for the rest of the community who aren't recovering from a frontal lobotomy or who's parents are not brother and sister.

[Gesundheit]

8 minutes ago, NOTintoxicated said:

Was waiting for someone to pompously refer to this. As if I was ever trying to convince @Gesundheit, rather than demonstrate why his political approach is delusional for the rest of the community who aren't recovering from a frontal lobotomy or who's parents are not brother and sister.

I know that truth hurts, but you've exceeded the limit. Now, it's time to put you to sleep. I've reported your passive aggressive insult and you will receive a warning soon.

 

Edited April 6, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Forestluv]

The thread has become overly personalized and antagonistic.