5 ms·

> In my view, our "tribes" broadly descend from pro- vs. anti-slavery camps Fact: George Floyd wouldn’t have died if he didn’t resist arrest. I’m certainly no

> In my view, our "tribes" broadly descend from pro- vs. anti-slavery camps Fact: George Floyd wouldn’t have died if he didn’t resist arrest. I’m certainly not pro-slavery, and agree people can be racist, but there is certainly something wrong if people can’t openly discuss taboo truths without being slighted as a racist themselves, utterly dismissed, or censored.

pianoben 4y ago
I'm not certain how that bears on what I wrote, and won't comment on it except to say that the American "pro-slavery camp" is not merely a synonym for "racially bigoted" - there's a whole world-view there in which groups of humans are inherently and fundamentally unequal, and in which might makes right, to a certain degree. On your topic of "taboo truths", personally I agree that we ought to be able to discuss things with civility and assuming good faith. It's not always or even often possible these days.
- imapeopleperson 4y ago
  I’m trying to illustrate that using racism as a baseline to divide camps of thought is the root cause of the fracturing of society. For example, I don’t understand how you expect a civil and good faith discussion by first labeling the opposing viewpoint as ‘pro slavery’ at the onset.
  - certifiedrodent 4y ago
    Politics was literally divided into pro-slavery and anti-slavery during a pivotal moment in american history. We can't really discuss american political and cultural history without referencing this. The impact from this event directly comes up in politics to this day and it is weird to ignore it.
AvocadoPanic 4y ago
Unless he dies from the OD on the way to jail in the back of the cruiser or at the jail.
jaegerpicker 4y ago
The debate wasn't about that fact, it was about rather a white man would have died resisting or if him resisting in the way he did justified his death. The data shows that minorities are killed by cops at much higher rate[1]. He was accused of writing bad checks, that doesn't carry a death sentence nor should it. The reason people that express that opinion are often called racist is that it seems obtuse to bring up in the discussion. I'm NOT calling you of racist, I don't think people that state that are by default. Many are just siding with the police for various reasons. 1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings-rate-ethnicity-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings...
- imapeopleperson 4y ago
  Yes but there really wasn’t a debate. You either agreed or were racist, and that’s the issue in a nutshell. Even just scratching the surface of this point, the data you shared fails to include details of whether the victims resisted arrest or not. There have been dire national consequences of how the public views enforcing the law since Floyd. And claiming racism when a point seems obtuse to you is hardly productive
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
I guess Philando Castile wouldn't have been murdered if he didn't interfere with police target practice either?
BEEdwards 4y ago
So in your "not pro-slavery" view police are allowed to summarily execute people on the street? That's what your stated "taboo truth" amounts too, it's fine for police to kill people as long as you have judged them worthy of death.
- imapeopleperson 4y ago
  Yes this is quite simple. Cops can use deadly force to defend themselves and the public. If you’re threatening a cop or the public you’re increasing your own odds of getting hurt. Very far from anything to do with slavery.
travisjungroth 4y ago
> there is certainly something wrong if people can’t openly discuss taboo truths without being slighted as a racist themselves, utterly dismissed, or censored. There are things that are true and impactful and worth talking about, and some of those conversations get shut down because they make people feel uncomfortable. Your statement is not in that group. There are statements that, while technically true, are misleading. They do not illuminate. They are so _obviously_ cherry-picked from the range of all possible statements that they reveal the bias of the person presenting them. Your statement is in this group. Personally, I’m fine with people who reveal themselves to be racists to be labelled as racists. I’m fine with this category of statements being utterly dismissed. I’m fine with these statements being “censored”, as in people choosing not to publish them.
- imapeopleperson 4y ago
  My statement is admittedly terse but you’re wrong to dismiss it. The unwillingness to even consider other opinions and the abject expansion of what qualifies as racist (and it’s use as slur) is exactly what’s perpetuating our issues.
  - travisjungroth 4y ago
    > you’re wrong to dismiss it. Why? > unwillingness to even consider other opinions What opinions? You labelled something a fact. Do you have an opinion to share? How much of my finite time on Earth do I have to spend on this opinion before I can dismiss it? > and the abject expansion of what qualifies as racist (and it’s use as slur) is exactly what’s perpetuating our issues. No. Definitely not. This is just detached from reality. Think of “our issues”. Whatever that list means to you. Society’s problems, our culture’s conundrums. Now, think of the list of things perpetuating those issues. If you put “the abject expansion of what qualifies as racist (and it’s use as slur)” anywhere near the top of that list, you are caught up in a delusion. I would sincerely suggest taking action to reground yourself.
    - imapeopleperson 4y ago
      It’s not detached from reality in the slightest. This is the crux of the debate on censorship. Biden just created a Ministry of Truth surrounding this issue. You’re just stubbornly attached to your own beliefs. Most people are like this—they don’t like admitting when they were wrong. In general, the reason ‘why’ (above) is because it could benefit you to find a better conclusion if one exists. Do what you want, but very dangerous to burden society with the same handicap

pianoben 4y ago

I'm not certain how that bears on what I wrote, and won't comment on it except to say that the American "pro-slavery camp" is not merely a synonym for "racially bigoted" - there's a whole world-view there in which groups of humans are inherently and fundamentally unequal, and in which might makes right, to a certain degree. On your topic of "taboo truths", personally I agree that we ought to be able to discuss things with civility and assuming good faith. It's not always or even often possible these days.

imapeopleperson 4y ago
I’m trying to illustrate that using racism as a baseline to divide camps of thought is the root cause of the fracturing of society. For example, I don’t understand how you expect a civil and good faith discussion by first labeling the opposing viewpoint as ‘pro slavery’ at the onset.
- certifiedrodent 4y ago
  Politics was literally divided into pro-slavery and anti-slavery during a pivotal moment in american history. We can't really discuss american political and cultural history without referencing this. The impact from this event directly comes up in politics to this day and it is weird to ignore it.

AvocadoPanic 4y ago

Unless he dies from the OD on the way to jail in the back of the cruiser or at the jail.

jaegerpicker 4y ago

The debate wasn't about that fact, it was about rather a white man would have died resisting or if him resisting in the way he did justified his death. The data shows that minorities are killed by cops at much higher rate[1]. He was accused of writing bad checks, that doesn't carry a death sentence nor should it. The reason people that express that opinion are often called racist is that it seems obtuse to bring up in the discussion. I'm NOT calling you of racist, I don't think people that state that are by default. Many are just siding with the police for various reasons. 1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings-rate-ethnicity-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings...

imapeopleperson 4y ago
Yes but there really wasn’t a debate. You either agreed or were racist, and that’s the issue in a nutshell. Even just scratching the surface of this point, the data you shared fails to include details of whether the victims resisted arrest or not. There have been dire national consequences of how the public views enforcing the law since Floyd. And claiming racism when a point seems obtuse to you is hardly productive

kevin_thibedeau 4y ago

I guess Philando Castile wouldn't have been murdered if he didn't interfere with police target practice either?

BEEdwards 4y ago

So in your "not pro-slavery" view police are allowed to summarily execute people on the street? That's what your stated "taboo truth" amounts too, it's fine for police to kill people as long as you have judged them worthy of death.

imapeopleperson 4y ago
Yes this is quite simple. Cops can use deadly force to defend themselves and the public. If you’re threatening a cop or the public you’re increasing your own odds of getting hurt. Very far from anything to do with slavery.

travisjungroth 4y ago

> there is certainly something wrong if people can’t openly discuss taboo truths without being slighted as a racist themselves, utterly dismissed, or censored. There are things that are true and impactful and worth talking about, and some of those conversations get shut down because they make people feel uncomfortable. Your statement is not in that group. There are statements that, while technically true, are misleading. They do not illuminate. They are so _obviously_ cherry-picked from the range of all possible statements that they reveal the bias of the person presenting them. Your statement is in this group. Personally, I’m fine with people who reveal themselves to be racists to be labelled as racists. I’m fine with this category of statements being utterly dismissed. I’m fine with these statements being “censored”, as in people choosing not to publish them.

imapeopleperson 4y ago
My statement is admittedly terse but you’re wrong to dismiss it. The unwillingness to even consider other opinions and the abject expansion of what qualifies as racist (and it’s use as slur) is exactly what’s perpetuating our issues.
- travisjungroth 4y ago
  > you’re wrong to dismiss it. Why? > unwillingness to even consider other opinions What opinions? You labelled something a fact. Do you have an opinion to share? How much of my finite time on Earth do I have to spend on this opinion before I can dismiss it? > and the abject expansion of what qualifies as racist (and it’s use as slur) is exactly what’s perpetuating our issues. No. Definitely not. This is just detached from reality. Think of “our issues”. Whatever that list means to you. Society’s problems, our culture’s conundrums. Now, think of the list of things perpetuating those issues. If you put “the abject expansion of what qualifies as racist (and it’s use as slur)” anywhere near the top of that list, you are caught up in a delusion. I would sincerely suggest taking action to reground yourself.
  - imapeopleperson 4y ago
    It’s not detached from reality in the slightest. This is the crux of the debate on censorship. Biden just created a Ministry of Truth surrounding this issue. You’re just stubbornly attached to your own beliefs. Most people are like this—they don’t like admitting when they were wrong. In general, the reason ‘why’ (above) is because it could benefit you to find a better conclusion if one exists. Do what you want, but very dangerous to burden society with the same handicap