Definitely 100% totally not terrorism, QED
-
@Horace said in Definitely 100% totally not terrorism, QED:
Seems inevitable that this sort of thinking will be the opposite side of the coin, when, for political dominance, one side fixates on the idea of skin color essentialism, where skin color leads to life experiences so different that they cannot be fundamentally communicated or understood from one skin color to the next. Please don't act surprised when that idea has some downside.
Ah, so it's the left's fault all those people I saw on Facebook are racist. Got it.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Definitely 100% totally not terrorism, QED:
@Horace said in Definitely 100% totally not terrorism, QED:
Seems inevitable that this sort of thinking will be the opposite side of the coin, when, for political dominance, one side fixates on the idea of skin color essentialism, where skin color leads to life experiences so different that they cannot be fundamentally communicated or understood from one skin color to the next. Please don't act surprised when that idea has some downside.
Ah, so it's the left's fault all those people I saw on Facebook are racist. Got it.
It’s hardly a novel theory that there is rational pushback on race essentialism, and the way i framed it is hardly illogical. I do take full responsibility for the Facebook randos you read. I am sorry for their racism.
-
What you’re describing isn’t pushback on racial essentialism it’s just a different flavor of it. Responding in kind.
If you don't take it, it can only good happen.
-
What you’re describing isn’t pushback on racial essentialism it’s just a different flavor of it. Responding in kind.
@jon-nyc said in Definitely 100% totally not terrorism, QED:
What you’re describing isn’t pushback on racial essentialism it’s just a different flavor of it. Responding in kind.
We've been told over and over again that one side is inherently better than the other. It's just so freaking weird that people on both sides think it's their group.
Oddly enough, this attack is almost certainly not terrorism. So the whole point of the thread is criticising the police for actually being right.
I was only joking
-
I haven’t followed - were they really ‘right’? Or just lucky?
IOW did they jump the gun and infer motive or its lack from some demographic trait, after which events were kind enough to confirm their prejudgment? Or did they have the facts first?
If you don't take it, it can only good happen.
-
What you’re describing isn’t pushback on racial essentialism it’s just a different flavor of it. Responding in kind.
@jon-nyc said in Definitely 100% totally not terrorism, QED:
What you’re describing isn’t pushback on racial essentialism it’s just a different flavor of it. Responding in kind.
Obviously a negative aspect of an idea presupposes the idea. I am giving context for the pushback, not claiming it’s any more coherent than the original idea shared by both sides.
But that said, culture is obviously a huge thing, and culture is a social invention which does exist even if it’s based on invented ideas.
-
@jon-nyc said in Definitely 100% totally not terrorism, QED:
What you’re describing isn’t pushback on racial essentialism it’s just a different flavor of it. Responding in kind.
We've been told over and over again that one side is inherently better than the other. It's just so freaking weird that people on both sides think it's their group.
Oddly enough, this attack is almost certainly not terrorism. So the whole point of the thread is criticising the police for actually being right.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Definitely 100% totally not terrorism, QED:
@jon-nyc said in Definitely 100% totally not terrorism, QED:
What you’re describing isn’t pushback on racial essentialism it’s just a different flavor of it. Responding in kind.
We've been t and over again that one side is inherently than the other. It's just so freaking weird that people on both sides think it's their group.
Stipulated that you’re above that sort of thing while 99% of your rhetoric is directed against one side.
Oddly enough, this attack is almost certainly not terrorism. So the whole point of the thread is criticising the police for actually being right.
I was pushing back against the certainty, which deserved and deserves pushback given the information at the time, presumably still memorialized at my original link. A strong conclusion without a factual basis, but with obvious social engineering motivations. Motivations that you strongly resonate with and which you will therefore never push back against.
Education is extremely important.
-
I haven’t followed - were they really ‘right’? Or just lucky?
IOW did they jump the gun and infer motive or its lack from some demographic trait, after which events were kind enough to confirm their prejudgment? Or did they have the facts first?
@jon-nyc said in Definitely 100% totally not terrorism, QED:
I haven’t followed - were they really ‘right’? Or just lucky?
I'm not sure. It's easy enough to make mistakes when it comes to terrorism. I remember some people claiming that the IRA bombing of pubs in Birmingham and the shooting of construction workers in the knees in Northern Ireland was part of a virtuous war against tyranny. Obviously, they couldn't be terrorist attacks since all terrorists are muslims.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Definitely 100% totally not terrorism, QED:
@jon-nyc said in Definitely 100% totally not terrorism, QED:
What you’re describing isn’t pushback on racial essentialism it’s just a different flavor of it. Responding in kind.
We've been t and over again that one side is inherently than the other. It's just so freaking weird that people on both sides think it's their group.
Stipulated that you’re above that sort of thing while 99% of your rhetoric is directed against one side.
Oddly enough, this attack is almost certainly not terrorism. So the whole point of the thread is criticising the police for actually being right.
I was pushing back against the certainty, which deserved and deserves pushback given the information at the time, presumably still memorialized at my original link. A strong conclusion without a factual basis, but with obvious social engineering motivations. Motivations that you strongly resonate with and which you will therefore never push back against.
@Horace said in Definitely 100% totally not terrorism, QED:
I was pushing back against the certainty, which deserved and deserves pushback given the information at the time, presumably still memorialized at my original link. A strong conclusion without a factual basis, but with obvious social engineering motivations. Motivations that you strongly resonate with and which you will therefore never push back against.
Right, and when those little girls were killed in Southport last year, a whole shit ton of people jumped to the erroneous conclusion that it was an Islamist terrorist attack. A similarly strong conclusion without a factual basis, but with obvious social engineering motivations. I don't recall many conservatives pushing back at that time.
So, where does that leave us?
-
I guess it leaves us with weighing randos on Facebook against official statements coming from the authorities and propagated by mainstream news.
@Horace said in Definitely 100% totally not terrorism, QED:
I guess it leaves us with weighing randos on Facebook against official statements coming from the authorities and propagated by mainstream news.
A number of public figures, including Nigel Farage, claimed there was a cover-up regarding the identity of the killer as they delayed providing details. Farage then went on to blame this for the riots.
Are Farage, "Tommy Robinson" (not his real name), Andrew Tate and Laurence Fox considered to be "randos"?
It seems to me that the police are damned when they do and damned when they don't.
