5 ms·

>You will only ever get name calling, knee-jerk responses and purely emotional, speculative arguments here Thank you for so perfectly proving my point

ddevault 5y ago
If your arguments always get called racist, maybe that's a cause for introspection, my friend.
- deadbytes 5y ago
  If your definition of racist is "someone who thinks there may be genetic differences between races" then do you apply this same logic consistently to sexism too? Am I sexist for suggesting that there are some genetic differences between men and women, that may lead to differences in behaviour? Is articulating this opinion a "bad faith, sexist argument"? Am I trying to draw the reader into making conclusions that are "quite sexist"? You for some reason equate "noticing differences" with "hating a group". Not once have I said this. I can observe that men commit more crime that women, this doesn't make me hate men. Similarly I can observe that adults commit more crime than children, this doesn't make me hate adults. The world is full of many inconvenient truths. We should be able to discuss these openly and consistently as adults, without resorting to emotional name calling.
  - ddevault 5y ago
    >The world is full of many inconvenient truths. We should be able to discuss these openly and consistently as adults, without resorting to emotional name calling. I agree. But you're not examining these "truths" critically, you're just making provacative insinuations and dropping them on the floor. >You for some reason equate "noticing differences" with "hating a group". Racism is not the same thing as "hating a group". It's an entire class of behaviors. What you've done is make some suggestive mentions about race with no critical examination of them, hoping that the reader will draw some conclusion from your woefully incomplete analysis. When the only thing you have looked at is race, not doing any due diligence beyond, and you're making a connection with violent behavior, then your argument is pretty racist. Your comments in this thread reads like a play-by-play of any bigoted argumentation which we've seen anywhere in past. The tropes and tone of your comments matches common bigoted patterns very closely. If you don't want to be associated with that, then you should re-evaluate the way you present your arguments.
    - poisonarena 5y ago
      Sounds like you are just giving the emotional response he predicted you would. And all of this comment reads as a you simply calling him a 'racist' because he noticed an interesting trend in the data above, and pointed it out. This should be discussed, and critiqued, but your comments just seem to be a reaction to seeing something that is breaking some kind of social barrier or narrative world view you want to believe.
      - ddevault 5y ago
        Well, dang just banned the account, so I'm feeling pretty confident that I was in the right here.
        poisonarena 5y ago
        HackerNews mods are a moral authority to you?

ddevault 5y ago

If your arguments always get called racist, maybe that's a cause for introspection, my friend.

deadbytes 5y ago
If your definition of racist is "someone who thinks there may be genetic differences between races" then do you apply this same logic consistently to sexism too? Am I sexist for suggesting that there are some genetic differences between men and women, that may lead to differences in behaviour? Is articulating this opinion a "bad faith, sexist argument"? Am I trying to draw the reader into making conclusions that are "quite sexist"? You for some reason equate "noticing differences" with "hating a group". Not once have I said this. I can observe that men commit more crime that women, this doesn't make me hate men. Similarly I can observe that adults commit more crime than children, this doesn't make me hate adults. The world is full of many inconvenient truths. We should be able to discuss these openly and consistently as adults, without resorting to emotional name calling.
- ddevault 5y ago
  >The world is full of many inconvenient truths. We should be able to discuss these openly and consistently as adults, without resorting to emotional name calling. I agree. But you're not examining these "truths" critically, you're just making provacative insinuations and dropping them on the floor. >You for some reason equate "noticing differences" with "hating a group". Racism is not the same thing as "hating a group". It's an entire class of behaviors. What you've done is make some suggestive mentions about race with no critical examination of them, hoping that the reader will draw some conclusion from your woefully incomplete analysis. When the only thing you have looked at is race, not doing any due diligence beyond, and you're making a connection with violent behavior, then your argument is pretty racist. Your comments in this thread reads like a play-by-play of any bigoted argumentation which we've seen anywhere in past. The tropes and tone of your comments matches common bigoted patterns very closely. If you don't want to be associated with that, then you should re-evaluate the way you present your arguments.
  - poisonarena 5y ago
    Sounds like you are just giving the emotional response he predicted you would. And all of this comment reads as a you simply calling him a 'racist' because he noticed an interesting trend in the data above, and pointed it out. This should be discussed, and critiqued, but your comments just seem to be a reaction to seeing something that is breaking some kind of social barrier or narrative world view you want to believe.
    - ddevault 5y ago
      Well, dang just banned the account, so I'm feeling pretty confident that I was in the right here.
      - poisonarena 5y ago
        HackerNews mods are a moral authority to you?