Current Affairs George Floyd and Minneapolis Unrest

[DrEFC]

Even a charitable reading suggests this is a racist post. In one swoop, Dandydan has managed to label all black people as the same, thereby delegitimizing their own individual identity (this is a common racist tactic: e.g., "all black people act the same; they are all "activists"; they are all thugs etc.) and then inverts this labeling by suggesting that some criminal black men are part of the very justice-oriented movement that seeks to rectify systematic racism. I see this all the time on the neo-nazi, white supremacist website stormfront.org; I believe it originated as a meme on the virulently racist Daily Stormer (links to wikipedia). Or you can click on this google image search link here (links to google image search page using "racist meme" "black lives matter" as search terms).

There's more to this story also iirc.

 

[RaleighBlue]

Today I learned Prevenger doesn't know what a strawman argument is.

Pretty sure socialism doesn't believe government is the answer to all ills for one.

For two, I've never seen Prev take that particular stance, and I've been around a fair bit...

How would you define a strawman argument?

 

[DrEFC]

Definitely not becoming a fascist country..

 

[Jebus_lives]

In what universe does it imply I'm "fine with that"? I'm not, and put simply, it's bullshit and you know it is. It's just an easy way for you to score a cheap pejorative jab at someone who doesn't think like you do.

The truth matters. The truth is that most are justified, which means the dumb proclamations about police murdering people with regularity likely isn't true.

Once again, one can acknowledge the truth about one thing without taking away from another truth.

You should probably reflect on paragraph 2 after writing paragraph 3.

 

[Pettifogger]

Pretty sure socialism doesn't believe government is the answer to all ills for one.

For two, I've never seen Prev take that particular stance, and I've been around a fair bit...

How would you define a strawman argument?

First, it's true (Prev is a proponent of government solutions to societal ills).

Second, using a true retort to a laughably false claim (on the same topic) certainly isn't how strawman arguments are typically employed in my experience. In yours?

It's yet another deflection from someone who loves to drive-by post. Sit around, pounce in some non-substantive manner, scurry away. A lot of that around here.

 

[Pettifogger]

You should probably reflect on paragraph 2 after writing paragraph 3.

See, like this. Just come out with your point already. Explain how I'm incorrect, or off base, and we'll see if you're right.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

It's yet another deflection from someone who loves to drive-by post. Sit around, pounce in some non-substantive manner, scurry away. A lot of that around here.

 

[Pettifogger]

Yes, I see you Jimmy. Thanks for calling yourself out.

 

[Prevenger17]

First, it's true (Prev is a proponent of government solutions to societal ills).

First I've heard of it. The boot-fumes must be going right to your brain

 

[LostLegend]

You can't fight against a system like that with words that can't be heard. Trump stating antifa is a terrorist org without evidence, with no linked deaths- but let's Proud boys ect roam without consequences (also seen trying to dress like "antifa" to instigate trouble),

Let's not forget his "very fine people on both sides" talking about the white supremacy groups at Charlottesville...

 

[Pettifogger]

First I've heard of it. The boot-fumes must be going right to your brain

Glad to hear you've become a libertarian in the last 90 seconds in order to win an argument. Hope it sticks.

 

[Jebus_lives]

See, like this. Just come out with your point already. Explain how I'm incorrect, or off base, and we'll see if you're right.

I'm not really sure I can put it more simply...

Statement:
The truth is that most are justified (assuming the correct course of legal investigation fine), which means the dumb proclamations about police murdering people with regularity likely isn't true. (No it doesn't).

Statement 2:
Once again, one can acknowledge the truth about one thing without taking away from another truth.

If statement 2 is correct, and let's assume it is; it can be both true that most killings are justified (i.e. within the law) and also be true that police murdering people with regularity is also true.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

 

[DrEFC]

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Don't turn me on now.
*although I'm a medic so causation and correlation are the less sexy terms I use*

 

[LostLegend]

Allow me to summarize this ridiculousness

Me: The majority of killings are justified
You: You're disgusting!
Me: That's silly
You: So you you agree some killings are unjustified. *proceed to completely ignore what you just wrote* You're disgusting!

You know exactly what you said and why people find your choice of words repulsive.

Of course the police have the right to defend themselves if their lives are directly threatened, but to say the person they may be forced to kill probably "deserved it" is repugnant. None of these situations are clear cut and various factors come into play (Mental health is a massive one.)

Stinks of low grade trolling tbh.

 

[Prevenger17]

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

I think I tried that one before, my missus wasn't into it