Apparently Riot has some problem with women: nasty behind-the-scenes stuff

[Saelune]

More like the freedom to be an Edgelord in public (uploading the video to Youtube wasn't part of the joke, was it?). If you push the limits, don't be surprised there will be consequences from crossing them.

PS: It was also a shitty thing to do.

I thought it was kinda funny. The fact that it was so bad was what made it funny. It's like, no he did not just joke about that, did he??? OMFG. And I think he should have to face the consequences of receiving hate mail and comments on his youtube page from those he offended. And those people sending him hate mail and making those comments should be free to say whatever they want to him. But a criminal offense? No. Back before people started losing their minds, that used to simply be called satire or a tasteless joke.

He joined UKIP. Any defense of 'just a joke, I don't believe that' was gone when he joined UKIP.

I don't know anything about UKIP or British politics, but as Hawki said, he didn't join the Nazi party or become a skinhead, did he? According to wikipedia, UKIP has actual elected members in Parliament. They are obviously conservative, but I doubt they have "gas the Jews" as part of their platform if they actually get people to vote for them. And if they oppose this ridiculous hate speech law, at least they are on the correct side of one issue.

You are hooked up to a lie detector test. If you fail, you have to pay that guy's fine, and the whole world will know you lied. You're asked, "Do you really, truly believe that he is a Nazi and wants Jews sent to gas chambers?" How do you answer?

This right here. This is the problem, you do not see problems so you assume they just do not exist and refuse to see the problems when pointed out to you.

Homelessness is a rampant issue for LGBT youth who constantly get kicked out of their homes and are denied work.


Yes, you dont see problems and think I am making things up. That is YOUR failing.

I did not know that. I just looked it up. I saw one UCLA study that said it was 40% of homeless youth, so if that's accurate it's 4 times as high as the national 10% of the population. Probably shouldn't be all that surprising, considering it's already a confusing and rebellious age. I would guess that a lot of them are runaways looking for other people like themselves. Sad.

But still, that's not what you said. You said, "... LGBT people tend to be poor." Like the majority of ALL LGBT people. I've never heard that. And googling around, it looks like it's just not true. Yeah, the poverty rate is a little higher than for heterosexuals [http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/lgbt.aspx] (29% vs. 21% for women, and 20% vs. 15% for men), but it's not 50%+. And you said the same thing about women, which is just ridiculous.

You say my problem is ignorance. I'd say your problem is that you exaggerate, which hurts your credibility.

I would say He is a bigot and a white supremacist.


Thats one way to try to weasle out of acknowledging my point.

You exaggerate, just in the other direction.

 

[Saelune]

I don't know anything about UKIP or British politics, but as Hawki said, he didn't join the Nazi party or become a skinhead, did he? According to wikipedia, UKIP has actual elected members in Parliament. They are obviously conservative, but I doubt they have "gas the Jews" as part of their platform if they actually get people to vote for them. And if they oppose this ridiculous hate speech law, at least they are on the correct side of one issue.

Pretty much. Most of what I know of UKIP is again from recent headlines (because of Nigel Farange pushing Brexit) and Wikipedia - right now their main stance is anti-immigration and pro-Brexit. Neither of these platforms are inherently racist. They're platforms that could certainly attract racists, but that doesn't make the party itself racist or national socialist.

TBH, I really hate it when the term "Nazi" is thrown around. Not only does it unjustly tar people who aren't Nazis, but it trivializes the threat that actual Nazis represent.

https://theintercept.com/2018/05/03/uk-far-right-terrorism-national-action/

I'll also be clear that both sides of the political spectrum have elements of this - some people on the right throw around terms like "socialist," "communist" or "Marxist" to anyone on the left without clear understanding of what these terms actually mean.

Being a socialist isn't a bad thing though, the right just uses it as a slur. The right however are full of straight up white supremacists who murder people with cars and chant 'Jews will not replace us' with Tiki torches.

 

[Hawki]

It is a bigoted right-wing party that only hurts his 'just a joke' defense.

Would jail time be better?

First of all, he joined/applied to join UKIP after the joke.

Second of all, no, jail time wouldn't be better. There shouldn't be any kind of punishment from the state, period, for what is, again, a joke.

I agree: "I'm offended" or "I'm upset" are hopeless ways to determine how much harm speech has done, and thus terrible yardsticks for criminalisation.

On the other hand, people really can be verbally bullied into suicide. If it is possible to make someone prefer to destroy themselves rather than face more words, then words surely have considerable capacity for harm. Thus why I object to the saying "Sticks and stones...", because it's patently untrue.

"Sticks and stones..." is a bankrupt saying, I agree. That said, we can usually reasonably determine when something enters harassment. And as experience has taught me, there's plenty of ways to be bullied without race, belief, or anything else like that being a factor for said bullying.

Being a socialist isn't a bad thing though, the right just uses it as a slur. The right however are full of straight up white supremacists who murder people with cars and chant 'Jews will not replace us' with Tiki torches.

That's sidestepping the point.

Nazis may be on the right, that doesn't mean all right-wingers are Nazis.

Communists may be on the left, that doesn't mean all left-wingers are Communists.

Throwing terms around willy nilly is something both sides of politics are guilty of - it's counter-productive, and minimizes the risk that actual Nazis represent. And while I'd say "at least in the US," I've noted that the same insanity is starting to crop up in Australia as well (though thankfully so far limited to the "cultural Marxism" boogyman).

 

[Saelune]

The problem I see is the mental distress part. It's very difficult to quantify that kind harm. So it basically boils down to the word of the offended. People can be offended or claim to be offended by pretty much anything. People lie and exaggerate. And the accused has little recourse to defend himself from such accusations.

I agree: "I'm offended" or "I'm upset" are hopeless ways to determine how much harm speech has done, and thus terrible yardsticks for criminalisation.

On the other hand, people really can be verbally bullied into suicide. If it is possible to make someone prefer to destroy themselves rather than face more words, then words surely have considerable capacity for harm. Thus why I object to the saying "Sticks and stones...", because it's patently untrue.

I would say in a general sense there are surely are ways of measuring outputs from words. For instance, we could make the ask a lot of people how upset they'd be if certain things were said to them. The population average would therefore indicate the likely distress to any individual of something said.

The defenders of 'freedom of speech' never want to have the discussion of what is and is not fair to protect were we to limit/stop hate speech. I think that would be an important conversation to have, because I do think we need to protect the freedom to disagree with others, but within reason.

 

[Saelune]

It is a bigoted right-wing party that only hurts his 'just a joke' defense.

Would jail time be better?

First of all, he joined/applied to join UKIP before the joke.

Second of all, no, jail time wouldn't be better. There shouldn't be any kind of punishment from the state, period, for what is, again, a joke.

I agree: "I'm offended" or "I'm upset" are hopeless ways to determine how much harm speech has done, and thus terrible yardsticks for criminalisation.

On the other hand, people really can be verbally bullied into suicide. If it is possible to make someone prefer to destroy themselves rather than face more words, then words surely have considerable capacity for harm. Thus why I object to the saying "Sticks and stones...", because it's patently untrue.

"Sticks and stones..." is a bankrupt saying, I agree. That said, we can usually reasonably determine when something enters harassment. And as experience has taught me, there's plenty of ways to be bullied without race, belief, or anything else like that being a factor for said bullying.

Made the joke in April, joined UKIP June of that year.


I know jail time wouldn't be better, was part of my point. He did something wrong, he got fined. Lots of things get you fined without having to invoke Hitler.

 

[Hawki]

Made the joke in April, joined UKIP June of that year.

Um, yes? That's what I said (though I did write "before" by accident, I think you quoted me before I changed it.)

I know jail time wouldn't be better, was part of my point. He did something wrong, he got fined. Lots of things get you fined without having to invoke Hitler.

Usually when you're fined, it's for a misdemenour more serious than getting a dog to do a Hitler salute.

 

[Saelune]

Made the joke in April, joined UKIP June of that year.

Um, yes? That's what I said (though I did write "before" by accident, I think you quoted me before I changed it.)

I know jail time wouldn't be better, was part of my point. He did something wrong, he got fined. Lots of things get you fined without having to invoke Hitler.

Usually when you're fined, it's for a misdemenour more serious than getting a dog to do a Hitler salute.

Then why bring it up? Him joining AFTER making the 'joke' is what makes it more damning. He basically doubled down.


Littering is a finable offense. Parking your car in the wrong places is finable. I also think he wasn't joking. 'Its just a joke' is a common defense of bigots to defer repercussions for their bigotry.


Know what the proper non-bigoted response is if you make a bad joke like this? Own up and apologize.


'Im sorry, it was a bad joke, I didn't mean to upset anyone'.


Instead he joins a right-wing organization and goes to speak at right-wing rallies.

 

[Hawki]

Then why bring it up?

Ask yourself - you mentioned it first.

Him joining AFTER making the 'joke' is what makes it more damning.

How? He made a dog do a Nazi salute. UKIP isn't a Nazi party. There's a tangental relationship at best.

Littering is a finable offense. Parking your car in the wrong places is finable.

Both of which are more serious offences than a dog doing a Nazi salute.

I also think he wasn't joking.

Can only disagree there.

Instead he joins a right-wing organization and goes to speak at right-wing rallies.

Which in of itself isn't damning.

 

[Saelune]

Then why bring it up?

Ask yourself - you mentioned it first.

...Because it supports my point. Trying to pull a Bugs Bunny on me or something?

Him joining AFTER making the 'joke' is what makes it more damning.

How? He made a dog do a Nazi salute. UKIP isn't a Nazi party. There's a tangental relationship at best.

Even a 'tangential relationship' is too much association with Nazi ideology.

Littering is a finable offense. Parking your car in the wrong places is finable.

Both of which are more serious offences than a dog doing a Nazi salute.

I also think he wasn't joking.

Can only disagree there.

A common tactic of modern right-wing white supremacists is to make tons of Nazi comments and references then fall back on 'its just a joke'. If he wanted to really prove it was 'just a joke though' he should not have doubled down.

Instead he joins a right-wing organization and goes to speak at right-wing rallies.

Which in of itself isn't damning.

I am not surprised you don't think it is damning, but it is. You don't prove you aren't something by doing things that people like you say you aren't would do. If someone was accused of sexually abusing children, probably not wise to hang out around elementary schools for example.

 

[Hawki]

Trying to pull a Bugs Bunny on me or something?

You're clearly Bugs in that analogy because again, you mentioned it first.

Somehow, this went to Riot, to Nazis, to UKIP. That last part is one you.

Even a 'tangential relationship' is too much association with Nazi ideology.

Debatable, especially when, again, UKIP isn't a Nazi party.

A common tactic of modern right-wing white supremacists is to make tons of Nazi comments and references then fall back on 'its just a joke'. If he wanted to really prove it was 'just a joke though' he should not have doubled down.

Doubled down by...saying it was a joke?

If white supremacists and Nazis fall back on "just a joke," it makes them cowards. Saying "it's just a joke" when it IS a joke isn't the same thing. And again, white supremacy and "national socialism" aren't the same thing as getting a dog to do a Nazi salute. FFS, doing the Nazi salute in jest is a way of telling actual Nazis that "we're over you, we don't take you seriously, and now we get to make fun of you."

Least that used to be the idea.

If someone was accused of sexually abusing children, probably not wise to hang out around elementary schools for example.

If someone was accused of sexually abusing children, while that person probably shouldn't hang around schools, I'd also expect due process to be doled out.

Dogs imitating Hitler isn't in the same ballpark, because the analogy you mention results in actual physical harm.

 

[Saelune]

Trying to pull a Bugs Bunny on me or something?

You're clearly Bugs in that analogy because again, you mentioned it first.

Somehow, this went to Riot, to Nazis, to UKIP. That last part is one you.

Even a 'tangential relationship' is too much association with Nazi ideology.

Debatable, especially when, again, UKIP isn't a Nazi party.

A common tactic of modern right-wing white supremacists is to make tons of Nazi comments and references then fall back on 'its just a joke'. If he wanted to really prove it was 'just a joke though' he should not have doubled down.

Doubled down by...saying it was a joke?

If white supremacists and Nazis fall back on "just a joke," it makes them cowards. Saying "it's just a joke" when it IS a joke isn't the same thing. And again, white supremacy and "national socialism" aren't the same thing as getting a dog to do a Nazi salute. FFS, doing the Nazi salute in jest is a way of telling actual Nazis that "we're over you, we don't take you seriously, and now we get to make fun of you."

Least that used to be the idea.

If someone was accused of sexually abusing children, probably not wise to hang out around elementary schools for example.

If someone was accused of sexually abusing children, while that person probably shouldn't hang around schools, I'd also expect due process to be doled out.

Dogs imitating Hitler isn't in the same ballpark, because the analogy you mention results in actual physical harm.

...I KNOW I MENTIONED IT FIRST, I WAS MAKING A POINT!

You take too many things at face value. You do know lying and deception are a thing, right? Cause your defense of UKIP, Meechan, and sexist men all rely on them not lying to you.

Want to make fun of Nazis? Then dont glorify them.

The US legal system is flawed and biased. Due Process is not a reliable one.

 

[Hawki]

You take too many things at face value. You do know lying and deception are a thing, right?

And you know joking is a thing right?

Cause your defense of UKIP, Meechan, and sexist men all rely on them not lying to you.

By that standard, any defence of any person could be met with "how do you know they're not lying?" Going back to what this thread was originally about, I could ask "how do we know the people at Riot aren't lying?"

Also, not sure where I defended "sexist men" or 'defended' UKIP - unless saying a non-Nazi party is a non-Nazi party is 'defending' them. Sometimes, a duck is simply a duck.

Want to make fun of Nazis? Then dont glorify them.

Didn't know a dog doing a Nazi salute as a joke was "glorifying," but sure, whatever.

The US legal system is flawed and biased. Due Process is not a reliable one.

Well that's a bit of a non sequitur.

So the system is "flawed and biased." Both are probably true to some extent, but that isn't a reason to not try and apply due process for John Doe here.

 

[Something Amyss]

I have never heard anyone say that women or LGBT people tend to be poor. I think now you're just making shit up.

You have a point. Typing "LGBT poverty" into Google got me nearly 10 million hits including scholarly articles, multiple studies, and dozens of ways to address it, but you've never heard of it, which is a good indicator Saelune is making shit up.

Black people, I agree, and I'm sympathetic to the plight of poor black people, as I am to all poor people, regardless of the color of their skin.

ALL lives matter!

Were you fired for it?

No. Were you? If so, maybe you should sue, because I'm pretty sure that's illegal in most states.

19 states--less than half--protect you from being fired for sexuality, fewer for gender identity. That's not even close to most states, and just on a single issue. It's barely more than a third.

More importantly, though, "you should sue" is a pretty tone deaf response. Not only is there a propensity towards homelessness and poverty in LGBT populations, something being against the law doesn't mean that you will see justice for it. If you don't believe the LGBT population, why don't you ask the black population, since you believe that they see discrimination.

Lawsuits cost money, and if you're poor and/or homeless, you don't have the luxury of just tossing money at a legal system which has been historically against you in the first place. Firms that take a cut of your winnings are only going to take cases where there's a strong chance of victory, so they tend not to touch LGBT harassment and discrimination cases. There are multiple types of jury nullification used in jury cases regarding LGBT individuals, which, while illegal, do happen.

You say you're not throwing anyone under the bus, but the dismissive way with which you write off the problems facing others really does qualify. Especially when your response to LGBT poverty issues is "oh hey, I found one source that doesn't sound TOO bad...."

 

[Saelune]

You take too many things at face value. You do know lying and deception are a thing, right?

And you know joking is a thing right?

Cause your defense of UKIP, Meechan, and sexist men all rely on them not lying to you.

By that standard, any defence of any person could be met with "how do you know they're not lying?" Going back to what this thread was originally about, I could ask "how do we know the people at Riot aren't lying?"

Also, not sure where I defended "sexist men" or 'defended' UKIP - unless saying a non-Nazi party is a non-Nazi party is 'defending' them. Sometimes, a duck is simply a duck.

Want to make fun of Nazis? Then dont glorify them.

Didn't know a dog doing a Nazi salute as a joke was "glorifying," but sure, whatever.

The US legal system is flawed and biased. Due Process is not a reliable one.

Well that's a bit of a non sequitur.

So the system is "flawed and biased." Both are probably true to some extent, but that isn't a reason to not try and apply due process for John Doe here.

That doesn't answer the question. DO YOU KNOW LYING IS A THING? I mean, you seem to automatically assume I am lying, so I guess you don't take EVERYONE at face value, just straight white men. Hmmmm...


Any defence of any person CAN be met with 'How do you know they're not lying?'. REASONABLE skepticism is a good thing. It becomes unreasonable when evidence is denied cause it doesnt suit your narrative.


Sometimes a right-wing organization is sympathetic and encouraging of white nationalism.


Because you keep saying it is just a dog doing a thing, it was more than that, but that doesnt suit your narrative.


Ok, and Meechan went through the law and got fined. He lost. Then people said it was wrong of him to lose that case. If you're going to argue in defense of Due Process in spite of its flaws, then dont complain when it works. Meechan fought the Law and the Law won. He also raised over $100,000 just to not pay a $800 fine.

 

[Hawki]

That doesn't answer the question. DO YOU KNOW LYING IS A THING?

Of course I know lying is a thing. Doesn't change how rediculous your question is.

I mean, you seem to automatically assume I am lying,

Excuse me?

Because you keep saying it is just a dog doing a thing, it was more than that, but that doesnt suit your narrative.

You may not be a liar, but you're certainly a hypocrite.

Agree with Saelune = "Good"

Disagree with Saelune = "Pushing a narrative."

What narrative have I actually pushed?

so I guess you don't take EVERYONE at face value, just straight white men. Hmmmm...

At the very start of this thread, I took the people at Riot at their word that there was a culture of bullying going on - a culture that predominantly affected females.

So now, not only are you projecting, but are trying to accuse me of being racist and sexist.

Any defence of any person CAN be met with 'How do you know they're not lying?'. REASONABLE skepticism is a good thing.

Yes, and?

The key words are "reasonable skepticism." If someone claims that UKIP is secretly a Nazi front, then I think asking for proof is a case of reasonable skepticism.

It becomes unreasonable when evidence is denied cause it doesnt suit your narrative.

You're the one who's trying to push the narrative, not me.

Sometimes a right-wing organization is sympathetic and encouraging of white nationalism.

Yes, and?

This was originally about UKIP and Nazism. Now it's about white nationalism. There's overlap between those trains of thought, and I've already stated that UKIP could attract racists, but there's nothing in their platform that's inherently racist nor national socialist.

Ok, and Meechan went through the law and got fined. He lost. Then people said it was wrong of him to lose that case. If you're going to argue in defense of Due Process in spite of its flaws, then dont complain when it works. Meechan fought the Law and the Law won. He also raised over $100,000 just to not pay a $800 fine.

My original point was that it was absurd that it should count as a crime at all. And despite your attempted projections, it would be equally asinine regardless of Meechan's skin colour or gender.

 

[Kerg3927]

"Oh well I personally never see any examples of discrimination so it clearly must not exist" -Kerg39726

That's not my position. I believe it certainly exists, but I think some people exaggerate how often it actually occurs.

On the other hand, people really can be verbally bullied into suicide. If it is possible to make someone prefer to destroy themselves rather than face more words, then words surely have considerable capacity for harm. Thus why I object to the saying "Sticks and stones...", because it's patently untrue.

I don't have a problem with someone facing criminal prosecution if their words coerce someone into suicide. That's measurable harm that can be reasonably proven in court. For example, the Conrad Roy case [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy]. What she did was wrong, and I think it's good that she had to face consequences for it.

What I don't like is people pushing for laws that say that "these words" are illegal, across the board, no matter the context, no matter the harm actually created, which as I said is hard to measure in most cases. It's too vague and subjective.

I would say in a general sense there are surely are ways of measuring outputs from words. For instance, we could make the ask a lot of people how upset they'd be if certain things were said to them. The population average would therefore indicate the likely distress to any individual of something said.

Interesting idea, but I still don't think that would be a good measurement of harm.

We can't protect everyone from every negative emotion elicited by words. That's part of life. So maybe "sticks and stones" is not true in all cases, but I think it works most of the time, and it's a very healthy motto. Trying to be tough and not let mere words ruin your day is a very healthy practice. I consider toughness to be a virtue. I know some would disagree, and I can't understand that line of thinking.

If you going to claim the Freedom of Speech is good, please also makes sure you cover every unintended consequences. You list only includes minor negative issues - there are way bigger problems with FoS.

Fair enough. I would add that I don't just think freedom of speech is good. I think it's the primary difference between the U.S. and countries like Russia and China. The idea of not having freedom of speech terrifies me. Yet billions live without that freedom every day. I maintain that the unintended consequences that we live with are far better than the alternative.

I would say He is a bigot and a white supremacist.

I disagree. I just don't see any evidence of that. I think he fully believes that Nazism is bad, which is exactly why he used it as a prank on his girlfriend. If I'm driving in my car and let out a fart, and laugh when my wife bitches and tells me to roll a window down, it doesn't mean that I think my farts smell wonderful. It means exactly the opposite, actually.

... I do think we need to protect the freedom to disagree with others, but within reason.

To me that sounds like you want to protect the freedom to disagree only if it's a disagreement that you agree with. And that's precisely why it's a dangerous idea.

The right however are full of straight up white supremacists who murder people with cars and chant 'Jews will not replace us' with Tiki torches.

Really? Full of people like that? I'm certainly no defender of the right, but that's a straight up whopper. It's a tiny fringe of the right.

I have never heard anyone say that women or LGBT people tend to be poor. I think now you're just making shit up.

You have a point. Typing "LGBT poverty" into Google got me nearly 10 million hits including scholarly articles, multiple studies, and dozens of ways to address it, but you've never heard of it, which is a good indicator Saelune is making shit up.

I saw those. Do you know what "tend to" means? It means more likely than not. And in the first page or two of google results that I scanned over, I didn't see any that said that more than half of LGBT people are poor. And yes, I've never heard anyone say that, until this thread.

Black people, I agree, and I'm sympathetic to the plight of poor black people, as I am to all poor people, regardless of the color of their skin.

ALL lives matter!

Yes, unless you're a racist.

Were you fired for it?

No. Were you? If so, maybe you should sue, because I'm pretty sure that's illegal in most states.

19 states--less than half--protect you from being fired for sexuality, fewer for gender identity. That's not even close to most states, and just on a single issue. It's barely more than a third.

I assumed it was far more than that. I was wrong. Thanks for the correction. The number I just saw was 22 [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-is-it-still-legal-to-fire-someone-for-being-gay-253661/]. I hope the rest of the states soon incorporate it.

More importantly, though, "you should sue" is a pretty tone deaf response. Not only is there a propensity towards homelessness and poverty in LGBT populations, something being against the law doesn't mean that you will see justice for it. If you don't believe the LGBT population, why don't you ask the black population, since you believe that they see discrimination.

Lawsuits cost money, and if you're poor and/or homeless, you don't have the luxury of just tossing money at a legal system which has been historically against you in the first place. Firms that take a cut of your winnings are only going to take cases where there's a strong chance of victory, so they tend not to touch LGBT harassment and discrimination cases. There are multiple types of jury nullification used in jury cases regarding LGBT individuals, which, while illegal, do happen.

You say you're not throwing anyone under the bus, but the dismissive way with which you write off the problems facing others really does qualify. Especially when your response to LGBT poverty issues is "oh hey, I found one source that doesn't sound TOO bad...."

I know how the legal system works. It's all about who can afford the best lawyers. Rich people usually get the best results. Poor people often get screwed. It sucks, but it's the best system we have. If you have any ideas about how it can be made more equitable, I'm all ears.

I'm sorry if you feel that I am tone deaf. I acknowledge that there are problems out there. There always will be, but I'm all for improving the plight of people facing actual hardships that are occurring through no fault of their own. I would just like to see the issues discussed logically and practically without exaggerating and sensationalizing the degree of the problem and without calling for punitive reverse discrimination against some imagined boogeyman.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

"Oh well I personally never see any examples of discrimination so it clearly must not exist" -Kerg39726

That's not my position. I believe it certainly exists, but I think some people exaggerate how often it actually occurs.

And your evidence for that particular viewpoint was an entirely anecdotal rundown of your day-to-day. So yes, you are in fact making "I never see it, therefore it does not happen" your argument. We've argued before and I can see you continue to have a terribly limited capacity for thinking outside your own lot in life

 

[Kerg3927]

"Oh well I personally never see any examples of discrimination so it clearly must not exist" -Kerg39726

That's not my position. I believe it certainly exists, but I think some people exaggerate how often it actually occurs.

And your evidence for that particular viewpoint was an entirely anecdotal rundown of your day-to-day. So yes, you are in fact making "I never see it, therefore it does not happen" your argument. We've argued before and I can see you continue to have a terribly limited capacity for thinking outside your own lot in life

Everyone perceives the world through their own eyeballs. My viewpoint is not just derived from my in-person day-to-day, though. I know that has severe limitations. My world is tiny, as is everyone's. It's also from looking at the available information I see online.

There is nothing that generates traffic on a news website or draws attention to a social media posting than a story about discrimination. This is outrage culture. We have millions of people constantly scouring the internet for such stories because it's click-bait gold. We have 325 million people in the U.S. That's an astronomical number of people, most of them with a phone and access to the internet. I think if actual discrimination was as rampant as some would like to believe, we'd have a LOT more documented stories out there, if you do the math.

For example, say you have 10 racist episodes in a day nationwide that make the news or social media circles, out of 325,000,000 people. That means that 99.999997% of the country did not report any newsworthy racism that day. That's actually pretty good. Essentially 0%. But I think a lot of people hone in on those few stories and think zomg it's everywhere. It's not. It's just that most people are bad at math.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

"Oh well I personally never see any examples of discrimination so it clearly must not exist" -Kerg39726

That's not my position. I believe it certainly exists, but I think some people exaggerate how often it actually occurs.

And your evidence for that particular viewpoint was an entirely anecdotal rundown of your day-to-day. So yes, you are in fact making "I never see it, therefore it does not happen" your argument. We've argued before and I can see you continue to have a terribly limited capacity for thinking outside your own lot in life

And you aren't?

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

"Oh well I personally never see any examples of discrimination so it clearly must not exist" -Kerg39726

That's not my position. I believe it certainly exists, but I think some people exaggerate how often it actually occurs.

And your evidence for that particular viewpoint was an entirely anecdotal rundown of your day-to-day. So yes, you are in fact making "I never see it, therefore it does not happen" your argument. We've argued before and I can see you continue to have a terribly limited capacity for thinking outside your own lot in life

Everyone perceives the world through their own eyeballs. My viewpoint is not just derived from my in-person day-to-day, though. I know that has severe limitations. My world is tiny, as is everyone's. It's also from looking at the available information I see online.

There is nothing that generates traffic on a news website or draws attention to a social media posting than a story about discrimination. This is outrage culture. We have millions of people constantly scouring the internet for such stories because it's click-bait gold. We have 325 million people in the U.S. That's an astronomical number of people, most of them with a phone and access to the internet. I think if actual discrimination was as rampant as some would like to believe, we'd have a LOT more documented stories out there, if you do the math.

For example, say you have 10 racist episodes in a day nationwide that make the news or social media circles, out of 325,000,000 people. That means that 99.999997% of the country did not report any newsworthy racism that day. That's actually pretty good. Essentially 0%. But I think a lot of people hone in on those few stories and think zomg it's everywhere. It's not. It's just that most people are bad at math.

So when the stories of many are pointed out to you here in this topic you decide you know better based entirely on the life you lead. So all those people and their experiences are somehow worth less than you alone. To your mind "one" would be a greater selection than "lots". And you think its everyone else who's bad at maths?

"Oh well I personally never see any examples of discrimination so it clearly must not exist" -Kerg39726

That's not my position. I believe it certainly exists, but I think some people exaggerate how often it actually occurs.

And your evidence for that particular viewpoint was an entirely anecdotal rundown of your day-to-day. So yes, you are in fact making "I never see it, therefore it does not happen" your argument. We've argued before and I can see you continue to have a terribly limited capacity for thinking outside your own lot in life

And you aren't?

No as it happens, I'm not. If I'd said "Oh I see lots of people just like you, let me tell you about them" thats anecdotal. But with Kerg I could go and quote where he's dismissing presented evidence just because it doesn't gel with his view of the world. Which is not using his eyes, as he seems to think, but rather definitely closing them