Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man part II

[IndyDave1776]

Who said anything about walking on eggshells? Not making blanket statements about a group shouldn't be hard to do, whether it is black people burn down their neighborhoods, white people are racist, or Muslims are terrorists.

If its socially acceptable for some others to spray paint "kill white people" on walls without so much as a word of criticism from most segments of the public square, I am not going out of my way to be antagonistic but I am certainly not going to fret about the handwringing about saying anything that could be considered "offensive" or whatever other horse **** description may be applied to it.

 

[KLB]

Fine line there, right? When there is one particular group doing any given thing, it`s gotta be ok to say what`s happening.

It's not OK to attribute whatever it is to everyone in the group.

 

[nonobaddog]

The point is language. Maybe I explained what I'm saying better in my previous post.

Yes, you did. Semantics is great.

But "there are coyotes that kill chickens" does not say all coyotes kill chickens with or without semantics. That was the whole point of the coyote crap. It isn't fair to add generalizations where they did not exist.

 

[nonobaddog]

On semantics

It is fine to point out when people make semantic errors that actually affect communication. But sometimes one should maybe consider that semantic errors, like generalizations, sometimes happen more for expediency and to avoid thinking and typing(laziness) and most reasonable readers can figure out the difference.

If it is obvious that a statement is not true for every single possibility that exists, does one always have to jump through the hoops required to specifically and accurately define exactly what they are saying with no loop holes? Or is some sloppiness allowed and then rely on reasonable readers to recognize the meaning or is it always zero tolerance? Does it matter more these days if the post involves race? (eggshell factor so as not to offend the delicate)

Certainly one has to jump through those hoops in scientific writing but I wonder if that is true for forums. Some would say yes, others maybe not so much. I would say it is desirable but it can also get in the way of communication of the main points.

Also if the audience includes unreasonable readers then there is no choice.

 

[Leadeye]

I doubt this person would be in any condition to report back.

Wasn't there a young woman shot to death over this last summer in Indy?

 

[jbombelli]

Yes, you did. Semantics is great.

But "there are coyotes that kill chickens" does not say all coyotes kill chickens with or without semantics. That was the whole point of the coyote crap. It isn't fair to add generalizations where they did not exist.

I would bet good money that if one was to put a coyote, any able-bodied coyote, in a chicken pen with a bunch of chickens in the middle of the night, there would be less living chickens in the morning.

 

[jamil]

If its socially acceptable for some others to spray paint "kill white people" on walls without so much as a word of criticism from most segments of the public square, I am not going out of my way to be antagonistic but I am certainly not going to fret about the handwringing about saying anything that could be considered "offensive" or whatever other horse **** description may be applied to it.

So are you saying that it’s okay to say something you agree is wrong because someone else is saying something you agree is wrong?

 

[jamil]

Yes, you did. Semantics is great.

But "there are coyotes that kill chickens" does not say all coyotes kill chickens with or without semantics. That was the whole point of the coyote crap. It isn't fair to add generalizations where they did not exist.

Sure. But we were talking about “the blacks need to change” not “there are blacks that need to change.”

 

[nonobaddog]

Sure. But we were talking about “the blacks need to change” not “there are blacks that need to change.”

See, this is an example of semantics getting in the way of the main point. The point wasn't change and it wasn't blacks need to change either. It was "burning buildings in your own neighborhood is stupid". For God's sake - go to Chicago and do that stuff.

 

[jamil]

See, this is an example of semantics getting in the way of the main point. The point wasn't change and it wasn't blacks need to change either. It was "burning buildings in your own neighborhood is stupid". For God's sake - go to Chicago and do that stuff.

I see nothing wrong with saying “burning buildings in your own neighborhood is stupid.” People are indeed doing that.

 

[jbombelli]

Maybe some rioters don't like their neighbors?

 

[jamil]

Maybe some rioters don't like their neighbors?

Hell, my neighbor isn’t all that great. I never thought of rioting. Thanks. We’ll see if that solves anything.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Hell, my neighbor isn’t all that great. I never thought of rioting. Thanks. We’ll see if that solves anything.

Some thoughts to consider before rioting against your neighbor.

1. What race is he? If he is non-white, refrain from rioting against this neighbor and riot against a whiter, less protected class of neighbor.

2. How big is your neighbor? Remember, always start a fight you can win.

3. What will you gain if you win the battle against thy neighbor? Nike shoes? Big screen TV? Lawn mowed on time?

4. Do your other neighbors agree with you, or him? Nothing kills a riot faster than being outnumbered.

5. Do you have a non white friend who can tag along? He may be able to shout “Black Lives Matter” while you are destroying your neighbors property, thus eliminating any legal issues.


If you need more advice, or thoughts to consider, please send me a PM along with $10 to my PayPal with the title “How to riot like a liberal”.

 

[nonobaddog]

I see nothing wrong with saying “burning buildings in your own neighborhood is stupid.” People are indeed doing that.

Cool. I guess this is why we have peer review of forum posts.

If starting over I would say...
Burning businesses and buildings in your own neighborhood is stupid regardless of factors including, but not limited to, shoe size, milk fat content, race, height, miles per gallon, religious affiliation, orbital altitude, calories per serving, resonant frequency and any other factor of low, medium or great social import.

 

[foszoe]

I am a 14B. It's makes me chuckle to read about finding wides. I see EEE all over the place

 

[Leadeye]

Maybe some rioters don't like their neighbors?

Back in the 70s that was referred to as urban renewal. Burn down the old and the government would build new. I remember East St. Louis in the early 80s, it had places that looked new next to places that looked like a set from "Escape from NY". I had never seen so much barbed wire in my life, even coming from an agricultural background. The factory I was visiting looked like a fortress.

 

[actaeon277]

I am a 14B. It's makes me chuckle to read about finding wides. I see EEE all over the place

I have to order them.
Maybe cause me feet are on the small side.
8.5 EEE

 

[BugI02]

They strongly tend to be people more likely to support Democrats, except when a fringe group of angry Trumpers are convinced that the election was stolen from god himself by a cabal of communists or whatever.

Well, when I looked up that information about the McCloskey's of St Louis recently, I found that a spokesman for the BLM brigades said the gate to the gated community was closed but not locked, so they were not trespassing when they opened it and entered

By that logic, the people that entered the capitol through open or unlocked doors were not rioting or insurrectioning. The defense rests (and opens a beer)

 

[BugI02]

What is your point? Nobody said all coyotes kill chickens.
You seem to be adding things that aren't said so you can argue against the things you added.

Two-fold. Primarily that having to have a long list of verbiage at the end of each post specifying that 'the use of the word muslims does not imply ALL muslims' and 'the use of the word blacks does not imply ALL blacks' etc - like it was a prescription drug commercial - is stupid

And second, that the folks saying not all coyotes kill chickens are demonstrating insufficient nuance. ALL coyotes might kill chickens if given the chance, I just expect some in the wilds of the desert SW might not have any chickens around to kill. Thus the fact that they haven't killed any yet is not proof that they would not under other circumstances

 

[BugI02]

What is your point? Nobody said all coyotes kill chickens.
You seem to be adding things that aren't said so you can argue against the things you added.

Also, this is INGO. Who says I have to have a point [thrusts chin forward]