The US War on Blacks!

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Do we need a bring back ben thread... BBB.

[Alexander's Horse]

no

[Sava]

no

[Aeson]

If he said "the average white person" or "white people" would you be happy?

I doubt it, you're clearly looking for an excuse to ban him.

Your claim is that I do not have valid reason to ban him. For the sake of analyzing your logic here, let's address the hypothetical where I did just want an excuse to ban Ben. He would have been perma-banned when he attacked a poster based on race. (And many other instances no doubt.) Your hypothesis that this case is because I'm looking for an excuse to ban Ben is obviously false.

You banned him for using "fundamentally racist" stats.

No. That you interpret "the stats are not bannable" as "he was banned for using stats" clearly shows that you have difficulties parsing English, which helps explain why you can't see what Ben actually said.

His conclusion wasn't faulty, your gripe is with "any white person". I can understand quibbling over those words but given the clarifying context Ben provided he's talking about generalities, not specific white people like the shooter down in Charleston.

The phrase "any white person" includes all white people. He chose to phrase it that way. It is against the rules to phrase it that way. It's good you can finally admit that you can see the problem with that phrasing.

He was warned about this specific case when he was allowed to come back and post here again after having been banned for attacking a poster based on their race. He chose to do the thing which I had warned him would eventually lead to him getting banned again. He kept pushing his bigotry against blacks. He slipped up in his phrasing. I kept my word.

Going by your logic, Ben was saying a black man is more likely to be the victim of another black man than the mass murderer of blacks.

No, that is not the phrasing he used in the statement he was banned for.

[Aeson]

I interpret that to mean either white people in general or a generic white person, you interpret that to mean a mass murderer

No, I interpret that to mean "any white person". Which is a direct quote of what he said.

So how did you decide a mass murderer of black people in Charleston represents the entire set of white people in Chicago (or anywhere else?).

Choosing one when presented with the option to choose "any" doesn't mean a specific member represents the set.

When analyzing the truth of a statement which using "any" as a qualifier for which members of a set the statement claims it holds true for, you pick the least suitable member(s) of the set and see if the statement holds true for them. You start there because that is the easiest way to analyze if the set conforms to the statement about the set. If the least suitable member(s) of the set conform to the statement made about the set, then the statement is true. If they don't, the statement is false.

The statement is false. It was Ben twisting statistics to make an unsupported racially charged statement about what the problem in Chicago is.

Are you suggesting the reason you banned Ben is because you decided he thinks the most vicious white people the world has seen are better than black people?

I banned Ben because the phrasing of his statement and it's relationship to the context of what he was saying in general, and how that related to the rules.

What I think of Ben is unchanged from before and irrelevant to the decision. You can tell it's irrelevant because if I based my decision on what I think of Ben, rather than what I think of what Ben said specifically, Ben would have been banned permanently a long time ago.

[Kidlicious]

Attacks on persons, ideologies, and even nationalities are in-and-of-themselves not against the rules here outside [civil] threads. (Otherwise I'd have to ban essentially everyone here including myself.) Attacks on people or groups, or hate speech, based on race/gender/sexuality are against the rules. Mobius is being a dick, but not breaking any rules.

"redneck" is a group. "Redneck scum" is worse than anything BK has ever said on this site by a long shot. This is ridiculous.

[loinburger]

I don't see how calling a mass-murderer "redneck scum" qualifies as hate speech. John Wayne Gacy was an ******* clown, but that's not an attack against all clowns.

[Aeson]

"redneck" is a group. "Redneck scum" is worse than anything BK has ever said on this site by a long shot. This is ridiculous.

No, even if we ignore he was applying the label to a specific person rather than a type of action to a group of people, it would still be analogous to when BK talks about "black thugs". Which I will point out BK was not banned for.

[Aeson]

I don't see how calling a mass-murderer "redneck scum" qualifies as hate speech. John Wayne Gacy was an ******* clown, but that's not an attack against all clowns.

Clowns are not a protected group in the site rules anyway.

[Sepp Blatter]

FIFA has a flag, it's a bit gay.

I'm thinking of changing it to the Jolly Roger.

[Sep Blatter]

You just don't like cheerful pastel colours. I designed that flag.

That's it, I'm taking the flag and the trophy with me now.

[Kidlicious]

No, even if we ignore he was applying the label to a specific person rather than a type of action to a group of people, it would still be analogous to when BK talks about "black thugs". Which I will point out BK was not banned for.

It would be analogous if he said n***** thugs, or black scum. Something is wrong with you.

[Aeson]

It would be analogous if he said n***** thugs, or black scum.

Replacing "thugs" with "scum" doesn't work. The issue is how he uses the term "thugs". He applies it to blacks but not whites, even if their actions are the same. It's his racially charged code word. I have not seen him use "scum" in that racially charged manner.

In any case, it's not something he or anyone else has been banned for.

Something is wrong with you.

The assessment of an idiot mysogynist is of no import.

[rah]

I really think it's unfair to judge Aeson by considering this episode as an isolated instance. He's like the little kid who's mother tells him not to go in the water and continually sticks his toe in and tells her that he's not in the water just his toe is in, thinking he's the most clever boy around, JUST to piss her off. He's been warned but he still stuck his toe in because he's not really that clever.

[Berzerker]

That you interpret "the stats are not bannable" as "he was banned for using stats" clearly shows that you have difficulties parsing English, which helps explain why you can't see what Ben actually said.

In response to Pat you said "It was racist. The statistics themselves are fundamentally racist". Thats when I asked if posting "fundamentally racist" stats was a bannable offense and you said no, even though you banned Ben for the "racism" of drawing the wrong conclusion from those stats. Of course that wrong conclusion was yours, not his. The shooter in Charleston - your candidate for any white person - is not a greater threat to a black man in Chicago.

The phrase "any white person" includes all white people. He chose to phrase it that way. It is against the rules to phrase it that way. It's good you can finally admit that you can see the problem with that phrasing.

I dont have a problem with the phrasing, its clear to me what he said. But I'm not looking for an excuse to ban him. Does a black man in Chicago have more to fear from other blacks in Chicago than the shooter in Charleston? If the answer is yes, then your conclusion is wrong and Ben's is right. You could have at least picked somebody in Chicago to represent white people. But had you done that, "any white person" wont include all white people.

Replacing "thugs" with "scum" doesn't work. The issue is how he uses the term "thugs". He applies it to blacks but not whites, even if their actions are the same. It's his racially charged code word. I have not seen him use "scum" in that racially charged manner.

"Thug culture" was not invented by white people, being a thug is a source of pride for some people within the black population

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-hope-bryant/financial-literacy-minorities_b_1714073.html