> Who are you to determine whether someone is legitimately offended?
In this case, the "offended" party was offended on behalf of someone else. When a supposed "victim" of this "racism" spoke up, he was belittled because he didn't play along.
You want to be offended, fine, but don't claim to be doing so on someone else's behalf.
You seem offended that I think that most "anti-racism" is a sham. I was being nice. We could get into how most anti-racists are quite tolerant of horrific acts so long as they're performed by the correct people.
That pretty much proves that most "anti-racism" is not humanitarian but just crude political posturing.
So essentially, what you're saying is that this determination is based on your opinion of "anti-racism" and not any objective observations, direct measurements, or first-hand experience dealing with the impacts of racism? And, perhaps conveniently, this determination preserves your existing worldview that claims of racism are false or exaggerated.
> So essentially, what you're saying is that this determination is based on your opinion of "anti-racism" and not any objective observations, direct measurements, or first-hand experience dealing with the impacts of racism?
Not at all. I said that I looked at incidents of supposed racism such as the above. My observations drove my opinion of "anti-racists".
Is there racism - yes. My point is that the anti-racists aren't pointing it out, that they're engaged in political posturing.
BTW - I'm familiar with many of the so-called "direct" measurements. The vast majority don't measure racism so they're useful only to identify folks who either can't do science or don't bother in this case. Which category do you find virtuous? (You do know that "he meant well" is an insult, right?)
If you make statements about the "vast majority" and "most" situations, I expect more than anecdotes.
All you're doing is exhibiting confirmation bias. You're presenting an argument based on biased assimilation of evidence -- accepting only the evidence which supports your positive opinion of yourself and your prior understanding of racism.
You just dislike some claims of racism, and you've decided to generalize from there, apparently making no allowance for the possibility that you could be wrong. This isn't some thoughtful or carefully measure approach you're advocating here, it's an emotional reaction.
> If you make statements about the "vast majority" and "most" situations, I expect more than anecdotes.
Good for you. I took notes while doing my observation - are you going to come over to read them? (I'm not typing them in for you.)
> All you're doing is exhibiting confirmation bias.
Actually, you are. You're assuming things about my observations without any supporting evidence.
> You just dislike some claims of racism, and you've decided to generalize from there, apparently making no allowance for the possibility that you could be wrong. This isn't some thoughtful or carefully measure approach you're advocating here, it's an emotional reaction.
Pot, kettle, black.
Why is it so important to you to defend "anti-racists"?
Sorry, your anecdotal evidence is not valuable, nor are the generalizations derived thereof, and not deserving of serious consideration. If you had some actual evidence that we could consider here, that would be helpful. If your notes had any value then you should type them up, or at least don't expect anyone to take them seriously -- they're not a legitimate basis to get up and object to people claiming to be hurt.
For someone to say "my observations drove my opinions of anti-racists" is ill-conceived on so many levels. To use only your own observations as a meaningful source of knowledge about an entire group of people is the quintessential definition of prejudice. What are your controls? How are you countering for known psychological biases when making these determinations? That you expect other people to accept these conclusions simply because you claim to have had certain observations (not even presenting what those observations are), without qualification, is astounding.
On the other hand, people are presenting claims of taking offense at certain statements. They are only making claims about their own internal state. It's you who claims to have some special knowledge about the interior emotional states of other people. What you're presenting, without any kind of evidence, is essentially "I know when people are and aren't offended, and therefore I have a right to say XYZ because I know who is genuinely hurt."
I would guess, with a standard like this, that nobody can be genuinely, unjustly hurt by anything you say. They're all crying wolf. Or, perhaps most stupidly, people who claim to be hurt by Achmed stereotypes are faking, unless you personally observe them holding signs at next weekend's rally against some cause that you think is "actual" racism.
> Why is it so important to you to defend "anti-racists"?
> That you expect other people to accept these conclusions simply because you claim to have had certain observations (not even presenting what those observations are), without qualification, is astounding.
Pot, kettle, black. Or, if you prefer, double standards much?
> On the other hand, people are presenting claims of taking offense at certain statements.
You're not paying attention. They claimed to be offended because the statements were supposedly offensive to other people.
While they're entitled to be offended by anything they please, surely it's relevant whether said other people are actually offended by said statements.
>> Why is it so important to you to defend "anti-racists"?
> Because I have been a victim of racism.
How, exactly, has someone saying "that's offensive to others" helped you? If that whinge hasn't helped you, why is defending such people important to you?
Note the specificity. I'm not asking about other people who helped you.
> Good for you. I took notes while doing my observation - are you going to come over to read them?
Yeah, it is good for me. I understand the basic principle of science, as well as how to use a dictionary. I wouldn't go around waving a notebook full of my scribblings and conclude from this that the vast majority of claims about racism are overblown.
I'm neither ignorant nor arrogant enough to assume that my own observations are sufficiently broad or relevant, that they support generalized statements about people I've never met.
Oh really? I claim to have observations. That's pretty much how scientific theories are tested.
You claim that my obervations are flawed, but have yet to provide any supporting evidence for your claim.
Yes, it's possible that the folks that I run into are non-representative. It's also possible that my sampling wasn't good. However, you don't get to claim such things without actual evidence.
Because I look at the "offense".
> Who are you to determine whether someone is legitimately offended?
In this case, the "offended" party was offended on behalf of someone else. When a supposed "victim" of this "racism" spoke up, he was belittled because he didn't play along.
You want to be offended, fine, but don't claim to be doing so on someone else's behalf.
You seem offended that I think that most "anti-racism" is a sham. I was being nice. We could get into how most anti-racists are quite tolerant of horrific acts so long as they're performed by the correct people.
That pretty much proves that most "anti-racism" is not humanitarian but just crude political posturing.
Have a nice day.