The US War on Blacks!

[loinburger]

Well of course the meaning of symbols can evolve over time.

And no, I would not make the argument for the swastika that you posted. You tried to put words in my mouth, and presented a strawman argument.

It depends on what specific symbol we are talking about, and in this instance, I was making a point about the Confederate flag.

"Of course the meaning of symbols can change over time" is inconsistent with "a racist white southerner designed the Confederate flag 150 years ago, therefore it will always be a symbol for racism"

[I AM MOBIUS]

That's a very poor argument - the meaning of symbols evolve over time, unless you're saying that it's okay to get a swastika tattoo because it originally wasn't a symbol of Nazism.

I believe that the Confederate flag is often (perhaps predominantly) used as a symbol of racism, but not because "oh hey, go figure that a racist white southerner who lived 150 years ago designed the flag"

Indeed, its racist symbolism has been enhanced down the decades: last century when it was unfurled from the history books to rally against the civil rights movement - most recently for redneck scum to worship it before murdering defenceless black people in a place of worship...

[Berzerker]

The now-oft-quoted Ben post is a good example of the kind of coded/twisted language he used to convince himself he was within the letter of the rules. Note, for instance, the lack of the word "black" in that post.

Here is the quote:

That's the problem in Chicago. It's not poverty - it's not population density. It's not guns. It's the culture of one specific subset of the population that prefers to engage in violence. The biggest victims aren't white folks, or even black folks from white folks - but other black folks! A black man has far more to fear from another black person than they do from any white person. Far more likely to be assaulted, killed, etc.

I see the word "black"

Bummer about the slow-draft fantasy football league. No doubt he's plotting how to play without posting.

If I'm still around he'll send me his lists since Jag left

The fact that you don't see why what he said is racist, says more about how you see the importance of the race discussion than it does about the weight of Ben's words. Yes there is a disproportionate amount of black on black crime. Why do you think that is?

You didn't answer your question... And he got banned with your help for saying the same thing. Ben said the reason why is a subset of the population has embraced a culture of violence. He's right... I blame the drug war for largely creating that culture, but it exists whatever the cause.

Yes, Berz, yes he did say blacks are violent. He didn't say 'blacks are violent'

You said blacks are violent, not him...

Be under no illusion that that culture and specific subset of the population he is referring to are blacks.

So yes, at the end of the day, he was saying that blacks are violent, which is an extremely racist thing to say!

And you, Patroklos and Reg Collider are defending him for it...

Obviously there are a number of races responsible for that culture of violence, including whites, blacks, latin, asian, etc. But he didn't identify them all, you started this thread about black people.

What you are missing is its a subset of blacks, so how can it be an indictment of blacks in total? You guys can't possible be this stupid. There is nothing wrong with saying a subset of blacks are violent and prey upon the rest of their community. There is no judgement in that observed and demonstrable fact as to why, only the statment that there is.

Thats true even if we interpret this subset to be black

It's not a subset of blacks, the subset he was referring to are the blacks...

That you stubbornly choose to believe otherwise perhaps betrays your own attitude towards blacks...?

Then who are the black victims of that violence?

Not "a subset of blacks". He said, "a subset of the population", which is actually better ... if he hadn't then gone on to define that subset of the population with his use of "black person".

He didn't define the subset of the population beyond their preference for violence, he countered the "war on blacks" argument with all its racial connotations with an example of a non-racial war on blacks perpetrated by other blacks.

If he did say "a subset of blacks", that would also be racist, because he was describing the "problem in Chicago".

Is the war on blacks perpetrated by a subset of the white race? Is that racist too?

The problem is not just blacks who are violent, and he was singling out "one specific subset" as the entire root of the problem. Pretending violence in Chicago is simply a problem with a subset of blacks is racist. There are plenty of non-blacks who are also part of that problem. Not to mention guns and poverty really are factors as well. But Ben wants to heap all the blame on black people.

"Exactly. That's the problem in Chicago. It's not poverty - it's not population density. It's not guns. It's the culture of one specific subset of the population that prefers to engage in violence."

I dont even see the word "black" in there... Was he also blaming the victims of black on black crime? You're putting words in his mouth and accusing him of malfeasance.

It is wrong to say that that is the entirety of the problem in Chicago. The statistics do not back up the claim. As such it's a claim which heaps blame disproportionately upon a specific group based on their race.

He said the violence in Chicago is the result of a segment of the population that prefers violence. But you dont think the stats back that up?

"A black man has far more to fear from another black person than they do from any white person."

That sentence is horribly racist. It places ANY WHITE PERSON (thus the entire set of white people) above a generalized black person.

Here is what he said:

A black man has far more to fear from another black person than they do from any white person. Far more likely to be assaulted, killed, etc.

He's talking about odds and averages, and the stats do back him up. 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.

2) It might be poor word choice, but what he is saying, is that the average black person is worse than every white person there is. It's right there in his post.

He wasn't making any judgement about the average black or white, he said a black man in Chicago has more to fear from other black people than white people.

3) The first part of the post you quoted specifically blames all this violence on the culture of 'a specific subset of the population' (and he then goes on to blame blacks).

No, he blamed a specific subset of the culture - those preferring violence. He then blamed the black members of that subset for the black on black crime that makes it so unsafe for black people in Chicago.

No. As already stated it is not a bannable offence.

You banned him for using "fundamentally racist" stats.

No. I blamed Ben for the faulty conclusion he drew from those stats.

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.

No. "Any white person" isn't an average or statistical determination. It's saying that no matter which white person you select, the statement will hold true. Which means you could select Dylann Storm Roof because he is a member of the set of "white people".

That is what "any" means.

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.

[Kidlicious]

Indeed, its racist symbolism has been enhanced down the decades: last century when it was unfurled from the history books to rally against the civil rights movement - most recently for redneck scum to worship it before murdering defenceless black people in a place of worship...

Can someone please explain why Mobius gets to act worse than BK without getting banned for even 1 day?

[-Jrabbit]

Berz, for the record, I was referencing just the first couple sentences, up through the word "violence." My point - that Ben is constantly twisting his phrasing to avoid directly actionable wording - stands. More importantly, he did so in the face of specific warnings from the site owner, and did so constantly.

Ben is a shameless troll (witness his immediate "compare it to Chicago!" deflection from my main point), and compulsive about certain topics. Frankly, he revels in calling people names without direct name-calling, criticizing racial or social groups without saying something directly derogatory, and similar acts of brinksmanship. He not bad at it - much better than he is at actual debate and logic (such as specifically stating, "It's not poverty - it's not population density. It's not guns." -- when those are clearly factors in any intelligent evaluation). But I digress.

My point is, this was just a question of "when," not "whether." Ben ran afoul of Aeson, who is the sole arbiter in these matters. I'm not a big fan of this banning, but he who pays the fiddler calls the tune.

[DaShi]

"Of course the meaning of symbols can change over time" is inconsistent with "a racist white southerner designed the Confederate flag 150 years ago, therefore it will always be a symbol for racism"

I suppose he could argue that it still is a symbol for racism.

[Alexander's Horse]

Banning flags is stupid. It only makes them more popular with the wrong crowd.

[loinburger]

I suppose he could argue that it still is a symbol for racism.

Yeah, that would be a reasonable argument, as opposed to his essentially saying "hey, did you know that 150 years ago there were some racist white southerners???"

[I AM MOBIUS]

Banning flags is stupid. It only makes them more popular with the wrong crowd.

I agree, it's not about banning them - simply removing them from official buildings and license plates, etc...

[My Wife Hates CIV]

should we also get rid of NBCBLK news... or just leave everything the way it is? there are so many double standards... you'll never get everyone happy. so why bother?

[Aeson]

Can someone please explain why Mobius gets to act worse than BK without getting banned for even 1 day?

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.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Is Mobius a DL for Aeson?

[The Mad Monk]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]177454[/ATTACH]

This flag?

[Berzerker]

@Aeson

"A black man has far more to fear from another black person than they do from any white person."

That sentence is horribly racist. It places ANY WHITE PERSON (thus the entire set of white people) above a generalized black person.

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

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?).

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?

Well, it doesn't really matter - you're attributing that nonsense to Ben and then you banned him for it. I hope you change your mind.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

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