# anyone else been banned from a thread/forums for being anti-racist? :D



## metafang (Apr 7, 2018)

lot of casual and explicit racism here as in everywhere online just every community deals with it differently.

so how does FA deal w racism? In your experience.

I just got banned from a thread for : pointing out that when someone describes a person only by their ethnicity and then stereotypical bad traits racists keep associating w that ethnicity... it fuckin sucks? for everyone, not just for the ethnicity / peoples being joked out.


----------



## KILL.MAIM.KILL (Apr 7, 2018)

Welcome to the Internet.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Apr 7, 2018)

I like being called a racist :V


----------



## Infrarednexus (Apr 7, 2018)

I have never been banned from the forums, but I like to think I get closer and closer with each post


----------



## Ginza (Apr 7, 2018)

Anti-racist?? The fuck does that even mean? You mean, every normal, sane person?

As for how FAF deals with "racism", I've never seen it. I think what we consider "racism" is totally misconstrued. Hell, being white and using black emojis is now racist apparently. The worst I've seen in regards to "racism" is when members will make a sweeping generalization about how "we need to do this because straight, white men lol" and that's about it. I mean, not trying to be an ass, but this thread kinda seems like you're just trying to stir up shit.


----------



## metafang (Apr 7, 2018)

whats life without growing better?















so glad i keep learning! genuinely. hope this thread is inspiring for ppl to go outside comfort zone and get open to ideas they might not be familiar with

our brains are the funnels through which we sip reality


----------



## Dragoneer (Apr 7, 2018)

Racists are bad. We can all agree on that. We don't ban people for standing against racism. In fact, being _AGAINST _racism should be the default. However, you can still be against something and, in theory, be banned if you're not civil and respectful while discussing it.


----------



## metafang (Apr 7, 2018)

Dragoneer said:


> Racists are bad. We can all agree on that. We don't ban people for standing against racism. In fact, being _AGAINST _racism should be the default. However, you can still be against something and, in theory, be banned if you're not civil and respectful while discussing it.



thank you for the clarification / bureaucracy! there is nothing civil about what I responded to that got me banned, so getting banned for responding to it with the same tone other people in the discussion had was clearly bullshit to me.


----------



## metafang (Apr 7, 2018)

its probably not easy doing admin work on a site like this (more than other places) with all the nuance, and wanting to keep a "tone" that defines what's normal("civil")/not normal ("behaviors to ban") is understandable to me. so i wanted to post this to get more clear on what level of racism you consider "civil" here and whether mods accept ppl posting response against content like that "civil" or "hateful".

next time what _kind _of acid should i use to disintegrate the hate

also wow yall deleted my last post? speaks louder than words

ANOTHER EDIT~ i'm not claiming to be anything besides another asshole on the internet. but this is the kind of asshole i am <3


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 7, 2018)

The story of my life.

I just came off a suspension on the main site for sending a positive shout to a friend to just posted evidence on an AltFurry's page that he was an AltFurry. The said AltFurry told the admins this was harassment since he blocked me after I exposed him when he was trying to recruit and harass users. This AltFurry said I could not mention him after the block, so this was harassment, even though I was talking to a friend, not him. 

I got a one day suspension, which I appealed, but the appeal admin told me to use the ticket system. I'm undecided on whether to bother.

I am also somewhat bemused by this because my and friends are not spreading rumors about this individual since he and his group were featured in a Dogpatch article with incriminating evidence.

dogpatch.press: Discord bans Altfurry hate speech – see what they’re hiding with a leaked organizer phone call.

I told myself when I joined this forum I wouldn't get political, but I'm hoping this thread might help solve the problem.


----------



## PlusThirtyOne (Apr 7, 2018)

i wasn't banned per se but i was given a warning at work once for acknowledging that racism exists.
At first, we were all talking about PC culture and stuff like that. it was civil and respectful. Later several co-workers were discussing their rock climbing trip and one of them pronounced carabiner as "care-uh-beaner". Somebody else in the room was fake-offended by said pronunciation and i chimed in sarcastically with, "Yeah, that's offensive. it's pronounced cara-_hispanic_, you racist!". The entire break room went silent except for the ONE hispanic guy who legit laughed. Of all the "racist" things said in that room, including the constant N-bombs being thrown by blacks _and_ whites, i was the only one who got a talking to. FYi, my bestie at that job was hispanic and everybody knew we were close friends. Nobody has any reason to think i was making a truly racist statement.

i wasn't banned but because of the incident i stopped hanging out in the break room.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 7, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> The story of my life.
> 
> I just came off a suspension on the main site for sending a positive shout to a friend to just posted evidence on an AltFurry's page that he was an AltFurry. The said AltFurry told the admins this was harassment since he blocked me after I exposed him when he was trying to recruit and harass users. This AltFurry said I could not mention him after the block, so this was harassment, even though I was talking to a friend, not him.
> 
> ...


I mean what you described is kinda the norm lately with rules. If they block you, trying to circumvent or involve them in anything is considered harassment, so it makes sense for the suspension



PlusThirtyOne said:


> i wasn't banned per se but i was given a warning at work once for acknowledging that racism exists.
> At first, we were all talking about PC culture and stuff like that. it was civil and respectful. Later several co-workers were discussing their rock climbing trip and one of them pronounced carabiner as "care-uh-beaner". Somebody else in the room was fake-offended by said pronunciation and i chimed in sarcastically with, "Yeah, that's offensive. it's pronounced cara-_hispanic_, you racist!". The entire break room went silent except for the ONE hispanic guy who legit laughed. Of all the "racist" things said in that room, including the constant N-bombs being thrown by blacks _and_ whites, i was the only one who got a talking to. FYi, my bestie at that job was hispanic and everybody knew we were close friends. Nobody has any reason to think i was making a truly racist statement.
> 
> i wasn't banned but because of the incident i stopped hanging out in the break room.



I'll admit I laughed

But that break room is just


----------



## RinjiPantera (Apr 8, 2018)

I'll be blunt. The word racist has lost nearly all meaning after the insane abuse of the word against anyone who just had an opinion, especially Trump supporters. It used to be a charge to be taken seriously, but nowadays it's just background noise when someone calls you that.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 8, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> I'll be blunt. The word racist has lost nearly all meaning after the insane abuse of the word against anyone who just had an opinion, especially Trump supporters. It used to be a charge to be taken seriously, but nowadays it's just background noise when someone calls you that.


Politely, maybe it is because racism has lost nearly all meaning to certain groups that people are more vocal about racism right now.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Apr 8, 2018)

Basically everyone who is white, or someone that isn't on the far left is considered a racist/bigot nowadays. I'm not surprised if I'm called a racist just for saying this.


----------



## Okami_No_Heishi (Apr 8, 2018)

metafang said:


> lot of casual and explicit racism here as in everywhere online just every community deals with it differently.
> 
> so how does FA deal w racism? In your experience.
> 
> I just got banned from a thread for : pointing out that when someone describes a person only by their ethnicity and then stereotypical bad traits racists keep associating w that ethnicity... it fuckin sucks? for everyone, not just for the ethnicity / peoples being joked out.


I honestly haven't seen any racism on FAF in the 2 years I have been here. I honestly don't care what color your skin is or what country you are from. We are all on this shithole we call Earth together! And Furries are pretty chill! In my opinion, racist are about the most illogical people on this planet, even more so than the religious zealots. To hate someone just because their skin color is different is senseless. Pretty fucking dumb if you ask me. Just sayin.


----------



## Cawdabra (Apr 8, 2018)

Okami_No_Heishi said:


> In my opinion, racist are about the most illogical people on this planet, even more so than the religious zealots. To hate someone just because their skin color is different is senseless. Pretty fucking dumb if you ask me. Just sayin.


Well we are a tribal species after all. We've just been slowly breaking away from that over time.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 8, 2018)

Trust me, it is there. If you're interested, I'll show you a few ugly examples I've stumbled across recently in a private conversation. I don't want call out anyone. Just open a conversation.


----------



## Okami_No_Heishi (Apr 8, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> Well we are a tribal species after all. We've just been slowly breaking away from that over time.


Tribal don't have anything to do with racism. And white people haven't done the tribal thing in quite some time. Racism is about hate, nothing more. Taught by generations of hateful bitter people. Racism is taught and learned, it isn't natural.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 8, 2018)

Okami_No_Heishi said:


> Tribal don't have anything to do with racism. And white people haven't done the tribal thing in quite some time. Racism is about hate, nothing more. Taught by generations of hateful bitter people. Racism is taught and learned, it isn't natural.



Obviously, isn't all white people or even most white people. It isn't even confined to just white people, as other can exhibit racism against others too. There are some groups that embrace a certain identity and, either because they feel they are superior or their interests as a race are threatened, engage in discriminatory and eliminationist behavior. You cannot divorce racism from identity. I'm not criticizing, just making an observation.


----------



## Okami_No_Heishi (Apr 8, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Obviously, it not all white people or even most white people. It isn't even confined to just white people, as other can exhibit racism against others too. There are some groups that embrace a certain identity and, either because they feel they are superior or their interests as a race are threatened, engage in discriminatory and eliminationist behavior. You cannot divorce racism from identity. I'm not criticizing, just making an observation.


Not criticizing either my furry friend. My point is racism is a taught thing, not natural. Awooooo!


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 8, 2018)

Okami_No_Heishi said:


> Not criticizing either my furry friend. My point is racism is a taught thing, not natural. Awooooo!


Of course. I'm sorry if I came off confrontational.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Apr 8, 2018)

I know racism is observable in animals, put a black sheep in the middle of a white sheep heard and you'll find the herd running away from it.

I can be biased towards other races but it's not hard to let go of the initial impression if you prove me otherwise


----------



## Troj (Apr 8, 2018)

_Assuming_ the rules of a forum are fair, and _assuming _the moderators are sane, fair, and impartial, I can see how even a person with a "good" point or the "right" perspective could be banned for being abusive, disruptive, or pedantic. 

I've been on forums where people just became too shrill and obsessive, and had to be banned because they couldn't let shit go, couldn't handle even mild disagreement, and/or kept derailing threads to hash out minutiae that had offended them. They might've been "right," but they were disrupting the whole community with their antics.

Crappy forums with crappy moderators will ban people for calling out the elephant in the room because they don't want anyone raining on their lulz or making them think.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 9, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> I know racism is observable in animals, put a black sheep in the middle of a white sheep heard and you'll find the herd running away from it.
> 
> I can be biased towards other races but it's not hard to let go of the initial impression if you prove me otherwise


Thanks for raising this point. Everyone has biases, especially towards groups they've never met. What matters is recognizing you have a bias and correcting it.


----------



## Okami_No_Heishi (Apr 9, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Thanks for raising this point. Everyone has biases, especially towards groups they've never met. What matters is recognizing you have a bias and correcting it.


I dont have biases, unless you count religious zealots. I dont like them at all.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 9, 2018)

I'm really not sure what this is about? However, I have noticed some people will immediately jump onto an anti-racism bandwagon, including myself from time to time when I'm low on my tank of logic, when it's not necessarily what's going on.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 9, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I'm really not sure what this is about? However, I have noticed some people will immediately jump onto an anti-racism bandwagon, including myself from time to time when I'm low on my tank of logic, when it's not necessarily what's going on.


Real talk here, it's a judgement call. I'd rather be on anti-racist bandwagon and labelled a SJW than just stand by letting someone spout some racist claptrap that is hurting someone. But I never call someone out to just prove I'm right and virtuous. You got to pick your battles.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 9, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Real talk here, it's a judgement call. I'd rather be on anti-racist bandwagon and labelled a SJW than just stand by letting someone spout some racist claptrap that is hurting someone. But I never call someone out to just prove I'm right and virtuous. You got to pick your battles.



Sure, but sometimes racist ways of thinking are very subtle and can be based on personal experience. These people will take the few people of a certain minority they've had negative interactions with and apply a broad brush to all people that match the description. Attacking them for being racist will only make them dig their heels in. A better tactic is to talk to them calmly for a while, getting them to say a large deal about what they believe. Once they think they have an open mind to convince of their bigoted ways, you can then explode on them, criticize them, and reveal their ethics with a sudden display of anger and emotion, which may be able to drive into them when they've lowered their guard.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 9, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Sure, but sometimes racist ways of thinking are very subtle and can be based on personal experience. These people will take the few people of a certain minority they've had negative interactions with and apply a broad brush to all people that match the description. Attacking them for being racist will only make them dig their heels in. A better tactic is to talk to them calmly for a while, getting them to say a large deal about what they believe. Once they think they have an open mind to convince of their bigoted ways, you can then explode on them, criticize them, and reveal their ethics with a sudden display of anger and emotion, which may be able to drive into them when they've lowered their guard.


Yeah, but just speaking from experience, this works better when you're face to face with someone. Over internet, it's harder. My friends and I have had our clashes with Nazifurs on the main site. One put a nasty shout on my friends and I had to respond, maybe a bit more extremely than I should've, but still. If someone's at stake, then I'll care more about the person being hurt than the person doing the hurting in the heat of the moment.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Apr 9, 2018)

Can't say I ever have. Then again I only see people, not their skin color or ethnicity.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 9, 2018)

Mr. Fox said:


> Can't say I ever have. Then again I only see people, not their skin color or ethnicity.


There are those who don't, even on FA. Believe that.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Apr 9, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> There are those who don't, even on FA. Believe that.


Another reason why fursuits are a beautiful thing.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 9, 2018)

Mr. Fox said:


> Another reason why fursuits are a beautiful thing.


Wouldn't you say that just hides the problem?


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Apr 9, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Wouldn't you say that just hides the problem?


If there's a problem, it's usually because someone is looking for one. I see no problem with fursuits, they help break down social barriers in many ways, where people can just be themselves and get along usually without the fear of discrimination.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 9, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Yeah, but just speaking from experience, this works better when you're face to face with someone. Over internet, it's harder. My friends and I have had our clashes with Nazifurs on the main site. One put a nasty shout on my friends and I had to respond, maybe a bit more extremely than I should've, but still. If someone's at stake, then I'll care more about the person being hurt than the person doing the hurting in the heat of the moment.



Sure, and with that communication system, it's not very easy to lead a debate around a few interesting turns and then blow up. Attacking swiftly is of course also an option, except consider that these people usually want that kind of reaction. Simply deleting their comments and blocking them is also a good option. 



Mr. Fox said:


> If there's a problem, it's usually because someone is looking for one. I see no problem with fursuits, they help break down social barriers in many ways, where people can just be themselves and get along usually without the fear of discrimination.



I guess that's why fursuits hold limited appeal for me. I don't feel the need to hide. Also consider that we've already established most furries are white males. What is there to hide from? I think it's more that the anonymity granted by the suit allows some goofy behaviors that are hard to pull off if you can be seen.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Apr 9, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I guess that's why fursuits hold limited appeal for me. I don't feel the need to hide. Also consider that we've already established most furries are white males. What is there to hide from? I think it's more that the anonymity granted by the suit allows some goofy behaviors that are hard to pull off if you can be seen.


But isn't that what the fandom and fursuiting is about, roleplaying as some goofy character that is free from persecution or ridicule?

Race, religion, ethnicity, or whatever other personal biases one may have about another are often dispelled when someone is in a fursuit because, well, those issues are not always obvious.


----------



## Troj (Apr 9, 2018)

For me, the fursuit allows me to hide in some respects, and "come out" more in others.

My fursuit obscures my physical disability, my age, my race, my general physical appearance, and (to an extent) my sex.  

But, it allows me to express my core personality much more strongly.

Especially in the furry community, fursuiters aren't truly anonymous, because a suit can almost always be traced back to its owner. 

I'd also argue that fursuits help to put their wearers into a particular headspace that's overwhelmingly (but not always) pro-social. Social experiments have shown that people will adopt the social role associated with a particular uniform--so, people who are made to dress up like nurses will become more caring, while people who are made to dress like police will become more authoritarian.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Apr 9, 2018)

Absolutely spot on, Troj, as usual.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 9, 2018)

Mr. Fox said:


> If there's a problem, it's usually because someone is looking for one. I see no problem with fursuits, they help break down social barriers in many ways, where people can just be themselves and get along usually without the fear of discrimination.



Fine, but we aren't just talking about fursuits here. We're talking about the online aspect of racism. Now, admittedly, 90% of the time, the best these Nazifurs can do is just spam, cyberbully, and occasionally abuse the ticket system. But there have been incidents of doxxing, shutting down conventions with shenanigans, and harassing businesses that cater to furries. The Dogpatch articles I posted earlier in the thread lists even shadier stuff like abetting Holocaust denial and active recruiting minors into a hate group. Everything I'm saying here I can send you links.  On the main site, it isn't total bedlam and everybody get along for the most part, but Nazifurs are becoming a noticeable problem on Fur Affinity and other places online, too. Discord just banned the Nazifur group the article talks about.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 9, 2018)

Troj said:


> For me, the fursuit allows me to hide in some respects, and "come out" more in others.
> 
> My fursuit obscures my physical disability, my age, my race, my general physical appearance, and (to an extent) my sex.
> 
> ...


I'm not disputing any of this. I've said multiple times I'm not furry and I don't fursuit, so I'll take your word for it. But many of the problems with hate stem from online actors on Fur Affinity. I been around long enough on the main site (six years) to know what I'm talking about.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Apr 9, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> But there have been incidents of doxxing, shutting down conventions with shenanigans, and harassing businesses that cater to furries.


From what I've been able to discern, there hasn't been any positive proof that "nazis"/AltFurry/foo were behind the cancellation of any conventions. Allegations, yes, but all the evidence I've seen has been pretty ambiguous. Allegations are bound to fly when people are upset about losing something they were looking forward to and are looking for someone to blame. Really nothing you mention is exclusive to that group; there's an element of shit-stirrers as there will be in any large community, and while they might glom together to some degree, they're not going to be found in only one place. Most of the time when the AltFurries manage to stir up a sizeable shitstorm, it's because people are taking their bait.

Also keep in mind that Dogpatch Press is basically tabloid news. Take it with a grain (or more) of salt.


----------



## Troj (Apr 9, 2018)

Hurt people hurt people, as the saying goes. Victimhood doesn't automatically bestow insight, wisdom, compassion, empathy, or nobility.

The furries I respect are generally people who've taken their pain and struggle, and have sought to transform it into something positive and generative.

The furries we all hate tend to be people who've decided to take their grievances and their pain out on other people.

The alt-right largely strikes me as a bunch of self-pitying little boys who desperately want to feel big, powerful, and important, and who fear and resent the idea of having to share the societal buffet with other people because they feel entitled to a certain (large) portion of it. This includes the current batch of Nazifurs and racist furs.

What generally worries me about right-wing extremism in particular is how its rhetoric directly appeals to people's basic desire to maintain the status quo. The alt-right is very good at "just asking questions" and "just posing ideas" in ways that are intended to shift the Overton Window in a very dark direction over time.

That's why we should take those screencaps of alt-fur conversations seriously, in my estimation, while trying to avoid getting all hysterical or "Chicken Little" about it.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 9, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> From what I've been able to discern, there hasn't been any positive proof that "nazis"/AltFurry/foo were behind the cancellation of any conventions. Allegations, yes, but all the evidence I've seen has been pretty ambiguous. Allegations are bound to fly when people are upset about losing something they were looking forward to and are looking for someone to blame. Really nothing you mention is exclusive to that group; there's an element of shit-stirrers as there will be in any large community, and while they might glom together to some degree, they're not going to be found in only one place. Most of the time when the AltFurries manage to stir up a sizeable shitstorm, it's because people are taking their bait.
> 
> Also keep in mind that Dogpatch Press is basically tabloid news. Take it with a grain (or more) of salt.



Discord didn't throw the AltFurries off their service with all the other hate group for no reason at all. The organizing call recording and the log excerpts in the articles are just the tip of the iceberg. There are leaked communications out there detail exactly what they get up to on Fur Affinity, Twitter, and on Discord before they booted. And, yeah, I take Dogpatch with a grain salt, but sources he got the info from for this story were rock solid. The AltFurries even admitted they're authentic. 


Troj said:


> Hurt people hurt people, as the saying goes. Victimhood doesn't automatically bestow insight, wisdom, compassion, empathy, or nobility.
> 
> The furries I respect are generally people who've taken their pain and struggle, and have sought to transform it into something positive and generative.
> 
> ...



I pretty would parrot what you're saying, while emphasizing, yeah, they count on people going hysterical over their antics. I think you also hit the nail on the head when you pointed out how they like to frame themselves as a "free speech group" that "just asks questions" and "just poses ideas". One AltFurry told one of my friends who confronted them about the Holocaust denial threads they had that AltFurry allows promotion of Holocaust denial because they believe in free speech, no matter the cost. But if you tell other people they're Nazis and a hate group, the same people will hit you with a block and a cease and desists quoted from the Code of Conduct so fast your head will spin.

I'll acknowledge what I've heard some say here, though. The forums _seem _to be better policed against these guys than the art site definitely.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Apr 9, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Discord didn't throw the AltFurries off their service with all the other hate group for no reason at all. The organizing call recording and the log excerpts in the articles are just the tip of the iceberg. There are leaked communications out there detail exactly what they get up to on Fur Affinity, Twitter, and on Discord before they booted. And, yeah, I take Dogpatch with a grain salt, but sources he got the info from for this story were rock solid. The AltFurries even admitted they're authentic.


That only proves they're alt-right or adjacent and do as alt-right does vis-a-vis trying to snap up the disenfranchised, vulnerable, and impressionable, though. That doesn't make them responsible for cons being shut down, and doxxing is standard Internet shithead MO. Basically, I'd much rather put the things they actually and definitely do (and particularly the things that are somewhat unique to them rather than the same thing your garden variety trolls get up to) at their feet, than throw up accusations resting on much shakier grounds in an effort to weigh their cross down.



LogicNuke said:


> OneAltFurry told one of my friends who confronted them about the Holocaust denial threads they had that AltFurry allows promotion of Holocaust denial because they believe in free speech, no matter the cost. But if you tell other people they're Nazis and a hate group, the same people will hit you with a block and a cease and desists quoted from the Code of Conduct so fast your head will spin.


Just don't violate Code of Conduct, then. Banking on someone not reporting you because that person idolizes free speech is honestly a little silly. As staff I sometimes had to enforce rules I didn't really ideologically agree with, and I've certainly done my share of reporting content that I don't find personally objectionable but which violates rules and thus should be corrected or removed. Not saying that this person's motivations were necessarily anything as pure as respecting Roman law when in Rome, just that it's not as inherently hypocritical as you seem to think.

Baiting your ideological opponents into violating site rules is also something they wouldn't be the first group to do. Best thing you can do is not take the bait.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 9, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> That only proves they're alt-right or adjacent and do as alt-right does vis-a-vis trying to snap up the disenfranchised, vulnerable, and impressionable, though. That doesn't make them responsible for cons being shut down, and doxxing is standard Internet shithead MO. Basically, I'd much rather put the things they actually and definitely do (and particularly the things that are somewhat unique to them rather than the same thing your garden variety trolls get up to) at their feet, than throw up accusations resting on much shakier grounds in an effort to weigh their cross down.
> 
> 
> Just don't violate Code of Conduct, then. Banking on someone not reporting you because that person idolizes free speech is honestly a little silly. As staff I sometimes had to enforce rules I didn't really ideologically agree with, and I've certainly done my share of reporting content that I don't find personally objectionable but which violates rules and thus should be corrected or removed. Not saying that this person's motivations were necessarily anything as pure as respecting Roman law when in Rome, just that it's not as inherently hypocritical as you seem to think.
> ...



You piqued my interest with "the things that are somewhat unique to them rather than the same thing your garden variety trolls get up to." What do you mean in particular?

And I would never count on one of these hypocrites keeping their word on anything, period.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Apr 9, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> You piqued my interest with "the things that are somewhat unique to them rather than the same thing your garden variety trolls get up to." What do you mean in particular?


Mostly that to me it seems more worth the time/effort to talk about things like "giving holocaust denial a platform without challenging it" (if you're so enamored with free speech you don't want to prohibit harmful conspiracy theories from being voiced, that's IMO a silly hill to die on but I can appreciate sticking to your principles - as long as you're also prepared to tell the people that exercise their free speech to say preposterous things that what they say is preposterous), "actively participating in the dissemination of racist bullshit", "grooming people into intolerant ideologies" etc. 

Mentioning that they _also_ engage in juvenile, standard troll behavior is not wrong, but says less about the group, ideologically. Hell, for less serious offenses (not so much doxxing, for instance), they may even themselves use trolling as an excuse: "I did it for the lulz". Since trolling is relatively wide-spread online, it offers opportunity for deflection and trivialization. It's basically lower-value criticism in many ways.


----------



## Troj (Apr 9, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> One AltFurry told one of my friends who confronted them about the Holocaust denial threads they had that AltFurry allows promotion of Holocaust denial because they believe in free speech, no matter the cost. But if you tell other people they're Nazis and a hate group, the same people will hit you with a block and a cease and desists quoted from the Code of Conduct so fast your head will spin.



Such people are big fans of "freeze peach" when it means saying shitty, thoughtless, obnoxious, or cruel things, but suddenly, they're not so keen on it when feminists, "Cultural Marxists, "Leftists," or "SJWs" use it to criticize or mock them. We've seen ample proof of that.



quoting_mungo said:


> Baiting your ideological opponents into violating site rules is also something they wouldn't be the first group to do. Best thing you can do is not take the bait.



Yep. When possible, I like to give people the rope and the room to hang themselves.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 9, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Mostly that to me it seems more worth the time/effort to talk about things like "giving holocaust denial a platform without challenging it" (if you're so enamored with free speech you don't want to prohibit harmful conspiracy theories from being voiced, that's IMO a silly hill to die on but I can appreciate sticking to your principles - as long as you're also prepared to tell the people that exercise their free speech to say preposterous things that what they say is preposterous), "actively participating in the dissemination of racist bullshit", "grooming people into intolerant ideologies" etc.
> 
> Mentioning that they _also_ engage in juvenile, standard troll behavior is not wrong, but says less about the group, ideologically. Hell, for less serious offenses (not so much doxxing, for instance), they may even themselves use trolling as an excuse: "I did it for the lulz". Since trolling is relatively wide-spread online, it offers opportunity for deflection and trivialization. It's basically lower-value criticism in many ways.


Thanks for the wisdom. I need to consider this for a bit


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 9, 2018)

Troj said:


> Such people are big fans of "freeze peach" when it means saying shitty, thoughtless, obnoxious, or cruel things, but suddenly, they're not so keen on it when feminists, "Cultural Marxists, "Leftists," or "SJWs" use it to criticize or mock them. We've seen ample proof of that.



I saw your message after I sent the first one. They like to go on nasty screeds but then try to walk it back when they go too far.


----------



## Cawdabra (Apr 10, 2018)

Troj said:


> Such people are big fans of "freeze peach" when it means saying shitty, thoughtless, obnoxious, or cruel things, but suddenly, they're not so keen on it when feminists, "Cultural Marxists, "Leftists," or "SJWs" use it to criticize or mock them. We've seen ample proof of that.


I don't think I have. At least from what I can recall.


----------



## Troj (Apr 10, 2018)

There's a particular type of person who is all about free expression, doing stuff for the lulz, and not taking things personally until you insult them or malign something they value, and then they freak out. I've noticed that the people who complain the most about others being "snowflakes" are often huge snowflakes themselves, in that they cannot handle even half of what they regularly dish out. My assumption is that most people in this thread are at least familiar with this "type."

I was also alluding to pundits and public figures who are outspoken about "free speech" and wholeheartedly in favor of the "free market of ideas," but see dissenters or critics as inherently threatening and evil, without acknowledging or trying to bridge the apparent disconnect between these claims.  One recent example of this that comes to mind is "free speech" advocate Jordan Peterson wanting to create a kind of blacklist of "Cultural Marxist" content and professors, because their ideology is evidently too toxic even to entertain. That struck me as a pretty glaring double standard.

You've really got to read between the lines whenever a public figure these days talks about being "silenced." Interestingly, claiming that you're being "silenced" appears to be great for drawing additional attention to your cause or perspective!

I remember reading an article on Dogpatch about a furry who felt shamed and marginalized in more SJW-y furry circles, and so sought out the alt-fur online community. What was interesting was how the altfur community _also_ used various forms of peer pressure to enforce group norms and shared beliefs, but the writer initially reacted differently to it. I couldn't find the article, but it was striking to me how both social circles enforce certain group norms and expectations in their own way, but they evoke very different responses from people as they do this.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 10, 2018)

Troj said:


> I remember reading an article on Dogpatch about a furry who felt shamed and marginalized in more SJW-y furry circles, and so sought out the alt-fur online community. What was interesting was how the altfur community _also_ used various forms of peer pressure to enforce group norms and shared beliefs, but the writer initially reacted differently to it. I couldn't find the article, but it was striking to me how both social circles enforce certain group norms and expectations in their own way, but they evoke very different responses from people as they do this.



I read that, too. I don't want to be rough on him, especially since he's put altfur behind him, but he is justifying to a degree why he became an altfurry in the first place. Like Dragoneer said, not being racist should be the default in all groups. SJWs, I've got a problem with this term because when did fighting for social justice become a bad thing, are at worst an annoyance. They want people to adhere to basic social niceties that before recent events, was just common decency that society rolling along. Altfurs, as they were portrayed in the article, are far worse, trying to normalize racism and Antisemitism. This is night and day. I _wish _people exerted peer pressure to urge others not be racist. Most just ignore it and let it pass because they don't want to make people uncomfortable. I know I'm raising hackles, but let's try not draw false equivalencies here. Everything you said I agree with.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Apr 10, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I read that, too. I don't want to be rough on him, especially since he's put altfur behind him, but he is justifying to a degree why he became an altfurry in the first place. Like Dragoneer said, not being racist should be the default in all groups.


It's not like the progression is zero to racist without intermediate steps. A lot of alt-right groups have made subtle recruitment/indoctrination plans into an art: 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/967027082537721856


LogicNuke said:


> SJWs, I've got a problem with this term because when did fighting for social justice become a bad thing, are at worst an annoyance. They want people to adhere to basic social niceties that before recent events, was just common decency that society rolling along.


While I understand usage has shifted, back when I first saw the acronym start to crop up, it was used to signify a particular form of largely unconstructive, very confrontational, often alienating "advocating" for social justice. I like to compare it to white-knighting. (And to be clear, fifteen-year-old me had a period of acting this way. Fortunately I was set straight by friends.) No one deserves being demonized for immutable characteristics, and this includes e.g. white cishet men, who are often derided by this sort of social justice "advocate".


----------



## Simo (Apr 10, 2018)

Troj said:


> The furries I respect are generally people who've taken their pain and struggle, and have sought to transform it into something positive and generative.
> 
> The furries we all hate tend to be people who've decided to take their grievances and their pain out on other people.



That's a very nice way of putting things. 

I was just on the remnants of a forum, that died of just this, oddly, so it's curious, to read this now...

~

But as for the original question, nope, hasn't happened yet.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 11, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> It's not like the progression is zero to racist without intermediate steps. A lot of alt-right groups have made subtle recruitment/indoctrination plans into an art:
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/967027082537721856
> 
> While I understand usage has shifted, back when I first saw the acronym start to crop up, it was used to signify a particular form of largely unconstructive, very confrontational, often alienating "advocating" for social justice. I like to compare it to white-knighting. (And to be clear, fifteen-year-old me had a period of acting this way. Fortunately I was set straight by friends.) No one deserves being demonized for immutable characteristics, and this includes e.g. white cishet men, who are often derided by this sort of social justice "advocate".



I understand no one becomes instantly racist, but personal responsibility is still major factor here.

About SJWs, at best a small minority acted like this and you also acknowledged that term has shifted to mean anyone actually bothers to call out the Alt-Right for what it is. A lot of SJWs online are cishet white males and they seem to have no encounters with discrimination or suffer from alienation by their peers.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 14, 2018)

metafang said:


> next time what _kind _of acid should i use to disintegrate the hate


Try lysergic next time, make them open their minds a little lol


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 23, 2018)

"Anti-Racist" make it sound as if people don't use common sense when approaching the topic of racism. I find the term as obnoxious and pointless as "anti-sexism".

Being against racism is the common sense approach to it, not to mention that the rather large majority of people don't care about your race. You don't need to re-invent the wheel.

Though on-topic: No, I haven't been banned for being "Anti-Racist". You can can disagree with an alleged racist and not be an ass about it.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> "Anti-Racist" make it sound as if people don't use common sense when approaching the topic of racism. I find the term as obnoxious and pointless as "anti-sexism".
> 
> Being against racism is the common sense approach to it, not to mention that the rather large majority of people don't care about your race. You don't need to re-invent the wheel.
> 
> Though on-topic: No, I haven't been banned for being "Anti-Racist". You can can disagree with an alleged racist and not be an ass about it.


So ... it sounds you are against racism and you are just nitpicking a term. This thread is about racism, not the terms you use to define it. It is also suspicious that the racist is the person whose feelings and sensibilities you are worried about.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> So ... it sounds you are against racism and you are just nitpicking a term. This thread is about racism, not the terms you use to define it. It is also suspicious that the racist is the person whose feelings and sensibilities you are worried about.


A like for the attempt at putting words in my mouth.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> A like for the attempt at putting words in my mouth.


Explain your words or choose them better.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Explain your words or choose them better.


I just did.

I however can't comprehend or understand them for you.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> I just did.
> 
> I however can't comprehend or understand them for you.


I'll go with my interpretation. Anything else to add to the discussion?


----------



## DarkoKavinsky (Apr 23, 2018)

Oh goody a bait thread using the latest political key jangling in order to cause chaos and grief.

I can't be the only one whose fucking sick of this bullshit.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I'll go with my interpretation. Anything else to add to the discussion?


M'kay then. Have a nice day, bruh.


----------



## Troj (Apr 23, 2018)

Bias is like an iceberg. 

Most people are outspoken about the obvious and visible part of the iceberg that's above the water, but there's a lot under the water that goes unnoticed and unacknowledged, because it makes people uneasy. 

So, most people are outspoken in their objections to Nazis and Klan members, but, say, when two black guys spend _hours_ in police custody because a Starbucks manager was irked that they hadn't bought anything yet, "totally not racist" white people will bend over backwards trying to excuse the manager and/or trying to avoid acknowledging that implicit and/or explicit racial biases could've played any role in the situation.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 23, 2018)

DarkoKavinsky said:


> Oh goody a bait thread using the latest political key jangling in order to cause chaos and grief.
> 
> I can't be the only one whose fucking sick of this bullshit.


You are not the only one who is sick of this bullshit. 

Makes you think people make these threads just to stir shit up, yanno.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I'll go with my interpretation. Anything else to add to the discussion?


Yes, I do. What's it like being a talking blue moon? Do the other celestial bodies make fun of you for it? It's ok, there just jealous an astronaut didn't land on them. 

Also let me know if Mars is still single. Tell him to chat me up on Spacebook if he's interested. I have a thing for rocky planets.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> Bias is like an iceberg.
> 
> Most people are outspoken about the obvious and visible part of the iceberg that's above the water, but there's a lot under the water that goes unnoticed and unacknowledged, because it makes people uneasy.
> 
> So, most people are outspoken in their objections to Nazis and Klan members, but, say, when two black guys spend _hours_ in police custody because a Starbucks manager was irked that they hadn't bought anything yet, "totally not racist" white people will bend over backwards trying to excuse the manager and/or trying to avoid acknowledging that implicit and/or explicit racial biases could've played any role in the situation.


Always relevant, as always, Troj.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> Bias is like an iceberg.
> 
> Most people are outspoken about the obvious and visible part of the iceberg that's above the water, but there's a lot under the water that goes unnoticed and unacknowledged, because it makes people uneasy.
> 
> So, most people are outspoken in their objections to Nazis and Klan members, but, say, when two black guys spend _hours_ in police custody because a Starbucks manager was irked that they hadn't bought anything yet, "totally not racist" white people will bend over backwards trying to excuse the manager and/or trying to avoid acknowledging that implicit and/or explicit racial biases could've played any role in the situation.


If you're in a store and you don't buy anything for a longer period you are either there not to buy anything, or to start something. Or both. Or they could just be broke. Who knows. Could be a lot of different factors playing a role.

But yes, there is a possibility that an explicit racial bias is there. However, isn't it kind of irrational to jump to the automatic conclusion that the actions were made *because *of race, no? Or that the bias was already there?

There are far too many unknown/unseen nuances from this example to make any proper predictions, unfortunately.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> Bias is like an iceberg.
> 
> Most people are outspoken about the obvious and visible part of the iceberg that's above the water, but there's a lot under the water that goes unnoticed and unacknowledged, because it makes people uneasy.
> 
> So, most people are outspoken in their objections to Nazis and Klan members, but, say, when two black guys spend _hours_ in police custody because a Starbucks manager was irked that they hadn't bought anything yet, "totally not racist" white people will bend over backwards trying to excuse the manager and/or trying to avoid acknowledging that implicit and/or explicit racial biases could've played any role in the situation.



It's just as ridiculous to pretend as though anyone knows what consists of "implicit racism" or "bias" as though they are free from such implications themselves.

You can be just as biased toward quickly assigning racism to people as there are people who may have implicit racist bias.  Assigning motivation to people in situations you know nothing about and only heard from other people is, in my opinion, far more biased and uninformed than someone who "may have a percent chance of having racist motivation".

Implicit bias and unconscious racism is too complicated for anyone to handle reliably or with any amount of dignity.  The average person will use it alongside their bias rather than actually ethically utilize the idea.  We need to kill this idea from commonplace people.  It's not gonna get anyone anywhere.  It's simply unethical to give these tools to people who aren't even trained in handling their own biases.

It's kinda like a Conservative Boomer who assumes that every government is like Nazi Germany and has the exact same motivations of totalitarian control without a proper understanding of the context behind totalitarianism.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> If you're in a store and you don't buy anything for a longer period you are either there not to buy anything, or to start something. Or both. Or they could just be broke. Who knows. Could be a lot of different factors playing a role.
> 
> But yes, there is a possibility that an explicit racial bias is there. However, isn't it kind of irrational to jump to the automatic conclusion that the actions were made *because *of race, no? Or that the bias was already there?
> 
> There are far too many unknown/unseen nuances from this example to make any proper predictions, unfortunately.


Except there had been an older white lady who had sat in the Starbucks to catch her breathe and didn't purchase anything. Management didn't accost her and she left a free woman. After she heard of the incident, she subsequently joined the protests. This begs the question why she wasn't arrested.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Except there had been an older white lady who had sat in the Starbucks to catch her breathe and didn't purchase anything. Management didn't accost her and she left a free woman. After she heard of the incident, she subsequently joined the protests. This begs the question why she wasn't arrested.



She's an old woman who had to take a rest.  I'm pretty sure a thing called "sympathy" exists for the elderly who are physically strained.

Two healthy people loitering around is one thing.  An old woman taking a rest is another.

Did you ever consider that possibility before jumping on the racism train?  I'm not trying to sound aggressive I'm being genuinely curious.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Except there had been *an older white lady who had sat in the Starbucks to catch her breathe* and didn't purchase anything. Management didn't accost her and she left a free woman. After she heard of the incident, she subsequently joined the protests. This begs the question why she wasn't arrested.


Context matters. I highlighted it for you.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It's just as ridiculous to pretend as though anyone knows what consists of "implicit racism" or "bias" as though they are free from such implications themselves.
> 
> You can be just as biased toward quickly assigning racism to people as there are people who may have implicit racist bias. Assigning motivation to people in situations you know nothing about and only heard from other people is, in my opinion, far more biased and uninformed than someone who "may have a percent chance of having racist motivation".
> 
> Implicit bias and unconscious racism is too complicated for anyone to handle reliably or with any amount of dignity. The average person will use it alongside their bias rather than actually ethically utilize the idea. We need to kill this idea from commonplace people. It's not gonna get anyone anywhere.


By this flawed logic which you try to mask with rhetorical terms, we would never call movements like the Ku Klux Klan or the Alt-Right racist because we ourselves are implicitly biased.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> She's an old woman who had to take a rest. I'm pretty sure a thing called "sympathy" exists for the elderly who are physically strained.
> 
> Two healthy people loitering around is one thing. An old woman taking a rest is another.


Most shoplifters and loiterers are unassuming people you wouldn't necessarily assume would be problematic. Anyone who has worked in retail knows this. The manager didn't and was fired partly because of that in his termination notice.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Context matters. I highlighted it for you.


She never spoke to staff, according to her.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> By this flawed logic which you try to mask with rhetorical terms, we would never call movements like the Ku Klux Klan or the Alt-Right racist because we ourselves are implicitly biased.



Uh... Implicit racism and implicit bias is not the same as EXPLICIT RACISM AND EXPLICIT BIAS.

Don't call my logic flawed by criticizing it with flawed logic.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

I think this quote is especially true with the age of the Internet where information is spread so fast and so quickly that anyone can HEAR about an event without being INFORMED about it.

Also Fallout is a great game.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Uh... Implicit racism and implicit bias is not the same as EXPLICIT RACISM AND EXPLICIT BIAS.
> 
> Don't call my logic flawed by criticizing it with flawed logic.


The detail I left out while you guys were mindlessly spamming is that the manager who was fired apologized explicitly for his racist behavior in his dismissal notice and public statement. It was racism.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I think this quote is especially true with the age of the Internet where information is spread so fast and so quickly that anyone can HEAR about an event without being INFORMED about it.
> 
> Also Fallout is a great game.


Like when you thought Pareto distribution was accepted economic policy?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> The detail I left out while you guys were mindlessly spamming is that the manager who was fired apologized explicitly for his racist behavior in his dismissal notice and public statement. It was racism.



Yep and surely not because he was pressured into admitting it was racist or that he was told that his actions were racist and therefore HE is racist.  Because that_ never_ happens,_ especially_ not in an organization like Starbucks who mandates implicit bias training.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Like when you thought Pareto distribution was accepted economic policy?



You purposefully withhold information about a topic so you can bring it up later as a "gotcha".

I corrected myself and you hold it against me weeks later.

Do you have any argumentative standards?


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Yep and surely not because he was pressured into admitting it was racist or that he was told that his actions were racist and therefore HE is racist.  Because that_ never_ happens,_ especially_ not in an organization like Starbucks who mandates implicit bias training.


One could also argue by not admitting it, he could improve his future job prospects since he is currently seeking employment and most employers prefer candidates not involved in racist incidents. Additionally, why would he care about what Starbuck executive management thought if he is being terminated by them? Your logic is as flawed as your understanding of economics and the law.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> One could also argue by not admitting it, he could improve his future job prospects since he is currently seeking employment and most employers prefer candidates not involved in racist incidents. Additionally, why would he care about what Starbuck executive management thought if he is being terminated by them? Your logic is as flawed as your understanding of economics and the law.



Right because people totally aren't pressured into doing things that are overall negative for them when something like this goes viral, or apologize for things they never did or thought.  That _NEVER_ happens.  Nobody thinks emotionally over logically like ya boy here.  Emotion is totally not something that is a powerful motivator enhanced by peer pressure and public ousting.

Sorry but sometimes its easier to construct an argument via sarcasm.

(Also the door to "not being an asshole" is still open if you wanna go through)


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You purposefully withhold information about a topic so you can bring it up later as a "gotcha".
> 
> I corrected myself and you hold it against me weeks later.
> 
> Do you have any argumentative standards?


I withheld it because you should the facts of the incident before you come to argue about it. You came here to troll though, so of course you didn't even do basic research. I brought those past incidents because it shows a pattern where you come to a debate not knowing or caring about basic facts that undermine your argument. Instead, you, Yakamaru, and Infrarednexus, who blatantly posted an unrelated comment, came to spam with comments that are barely arguments about an incident in which all parties involved admit racism was a factor. But you all think that by posting multiple comments and memes, you win an argument or even annoy someone. 

No.

That isn't how it works. But it is amusing.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Right because people totally aren't pressured into doing things that are overall negative for them when something like this goes viral, or apologize for things they never did or thought.  That _NEVER_ happens.  Nobody thinks emotionally over logically like ya boy here.  Emotion is totally not something that is a powerful motivator enhanced by peer pressure and public ousting.
> 
> Sorry but sometimes its easier to construct an argument via sarcasm.
> 
> (Also the door to "not being an asshole" is still open if you wanna go through)


What pressure did they exert on the manager? Starbucks said he was released without guarantee of severance pay. 

As for pressure from the footage going viral, he turned down money from a conservative legal defense fund which successfully contributed to George Zimmerman's defense. Not the move of an innocent man.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I withheld it because you should the facts of the incident before you come to argue about it. You came here to troll though, so of course you didn't even do basic research. I brought those past incidents because it shows a pattern where you come to a debate not knowing or caring about basic facts that undermine your argument. Instead, you, Yakamaru, and Infrarednexus, who blatantly posted an unrelated comment, came to spam with comments that are barely arguments about an incident in which all parties involved admit racism was a factor. But you all think that by posting multiple comments and memes, you win an argument or even annoy someone.
> 
> No.
> 
> That isn't how it works. But it is amusing.



So you argue to prove a point rather than have an actual discussion (because how DARE I have something to say about a topic or participate in a forum) and at the same time you pretend that you are qualified to dismiss arguments simply by insulting it.  The pinnacle of logical thinking right here; if only there were more ways to express how ironic this is.

So you're gonna go ahead and assign motivation to me because how dare I be active in the forums and post in topics and disagree with people.


----------



## Troj (Apr 23, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Could be a lot of different factors playing a role.



Yes, and in this case, _one_ of those myriad contributing factors was very likely racial bias on the part of the manager and the police department.

What's very interesting is how many white people desperately want to avoid acknowledging that racial bias likely played _a _role in not just this situation, but others like it.



Yakamaru said:


> However, isn't it kind of irrational to jump to the automatic conclusion that the actions were made *because *of race, no? Or that the bias was already there?



Given the basic facts about the history of race relations in our culture, _and _the well-established research on explicit and implicit biases and beliefs, it's irrational and counterfactual to claim that racial bias _didn't_ meaningfully contribute to the situation.

Even if we're wrong about the role bias played in this or another situation, simply _raising the possibility _allows us to be more objective, rational, and fair than if we'd unthinkingly rolled with our first assumptions and/or the standard narrative. Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.

The historical tendency has been to see certain groups as inherently and "obviously" subhuman or default/human, moral or immoral, threatening or benign, innocent or culpable, or intelligent or stupid. To rewrite those narratives and challenge those schemas requires conscious work on our part.

(Thought experiment: If you were to switch or change the races, genders, sexual orientations, etc., of the major players in a given situation, would it have gone down the same way, and would people's reactions to the situation have been the same? How or how not? Why or why not?) 

Lots of people see it as "logical" or "natural" that a shopkeeper, cop, or coffee shop manager would be suspicious or scared of black people, without even realizing that this attitude is inherently biased. Because of this, black people will often be blamed in various situations for not working harder to signal that they weren't a threat. This has led (and continues to lead) to a lot of hurt, injustice, and harm across the board. 

Not being conscious of our biases also means that even when we think we're being "objective," "fair," or "rational," we're not. We think the world's objectively pink, because we don't realize we're wearing rose-coloured glasses.

You can't change what you don't acknowledge.

But, this work naturally requires us to confront things about ourselves, other people, and our world that aren't so pretty or nice, and it also requires us to change at some level, and admit our mistakes. It's easier to sweep it all under the rug, and decide that it's those_ other _people who are the problem.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> So you argue to prove a point rather than have an actual discussion (because how DARE I have something to say about a topic or participate in a forum) and at the same time you pretend that you are qualified to dismiss arguments simply by insulting it.  The pinnacle of logical thinking right here; if only there were more ways to express how ironic this is.
> 
> So you're gonna go ahead and assign motivation to me because how dare I be active in the forums and post in topics and disagree with people.


I'm saying if you are debating a issue, you should know the facts of the issue. If you don't, you're still free to argue, obviously.

Let's not be dramatic.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> As for pressure from the footage going viral, he turned down money from a conservative legal defense fund which successfully contributed to George Zimmerman's defense. Not the move of an innocent man.



No shit, he wasn't planning to defend himself, why is this a surprise?  I point back to my original argument.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 23, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> If you're in a store and you don't buy anything for a longer period you are either there not to buy anything, or to start something. Or both. Or they could just be broke. Who knows. Could be a lot of different factors playing a role.
> 
> But yes, there is a possibility that an explicit racial bias is there. However, isn't it kind of irrational to jump to the automatic conclusion that the actions were made *because *of race, no? Or that the bias was already there?
> 
> There are far too many unknown/unseen nuances from this example to make any proper predictions, unfortunately.


Except I have been in the exact situation of customers not buying anything and just hanging out.  It’s annoying and I’ll ask pointedly if I can help them to get the out of my store, because everyone annoys me.  But I’m not a racist fuck so I’m not gonna call the cops on someone for it.  

I have however called them because customers were being rowdy and rambunctious.  But guess what?  Those were white yuppie assholes riding through college with daddy’s wallet.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> No shit, he wasn't planning to defend himself, why is this a surprise?  I point back to my original argument.


He could have won an unlawful termination settlement at the least and if he lost, he would have no legal debt. He had nothing to lose.


----------



## Troj (Apr 23, 2018)

I regularly walk around in public _dressed as a fucking dinosaur.
_
I have had people tell me to go away or buzz off, and I've had people approach me and tell me I'm creepy, a pedophile, a rapist, or a pervert.

But, to date (fingers crossed), I've never had the cops called on me--in fact, the cops will regularly greet me and chat me up!

I think that's relevant and telling on at least a couple of levels.

I've also loitered at numerous businesses and used the restroom without buying anything, and I've never had the cops called on me. Usually, I get a glare, or I get asked CAN I HELP YOU? with passive-aggressive cheer.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> He could have won an unlawful termination settlement at the least and if he lost, he would have no legal debt. He had nothing to lose.


It would have absolutely flopped tho lol


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> Yes, and in this case, _one_ of those myriad contributing factors was very likely racial bias on the part of the manager and the police department.
> 
> What's very interesting is how many white people desperately want to avoid acknowledging that racial bias likely played _a _role in not just this situation, but others like it.


I do not like jumping to conclusions as if there is already racial bias involved, hence my reply. The example is riddled with holes and unknown nuances.

*Could* there be bias involved? Yes. But it's not explicit, nor is it confirmed. I won't jump to "Yup, there was bias here" when we have extremely little to go on.



Troj said:


> Given the basic facts about the history of race relations in our culture, _and _the well-established research on explicit and implicit biases and beliefs, it's irrational and counterfactual to claim that racial bias didn't meaningfully contribute to the situation.
> 
> Additionally, even if we're wrong about the role bias played in this or another situation, simply _raising the possibility _allows us to be more objective, rational, and fair than if we'd unthinkingly rolled with our first assumptions and/or the standard narrative. Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.
> 
> ...


It's irrational to automatically say that race had a part in it from a vague example where the context and nuances are gone. You are trying to project alleged bias into a scenario where the grey area is too big. 

In the hypothetical scenario you described: 
Was the manager an asshole to call the cops? Yes. 
Was it also stupid of the two guys to loiter for no reason? Yes. 

However, the manager in this case have a right to protect his store/diner/whatever *if* he perceives a threat, they are being a nuisance to other customers, or both. Or if they are taking up queue slots, blocking other people from ordering stuff, +++. 

Keep in mind that when you enter a store you are legally on private property, if I remember my laws correctly. 

I will simply have to respectfully disagree, Troj.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> *Yes, and in this case, one of those myriad contributing factors was very likely racial bias on the part of the manager and the police department. (A)*
> 
> What's very interesting is how many white people desperately want to avoid acknowledging that racial bias likely played _a _role in not just this situation, but others like it.
> 
> ...



I wholeheartedly disagree with everything stated here.
*
Exhibit A)* You don't give any evidence that racism is a factor, you just restate that it is.  Just because there are complicated variables doesn't mean we get to attach whatever variable we want to it.  And stating "Implicit bias exists" isn't a variable because just because it exists doesn't mean it's a variable.  Especially since we can't actually take the same person and compare them in a similar or the same scenario with race, gender, sexual orientation reversed or whatever.  One incident could make me out to be a racist, but that's simply because we don't have comparable incidents with the same person.

*B)* I disagree; it's hardly irrational to exclude factors.  What's irrational is making them the forefront of any situation involving multiple races, which it seems whenever a case like this goes viral where the incident is greyed.

*C)* I significantly disagree here, in fact I think it does the opposite; I think it makes us less objective and fair.  You'd be correct if we kept that possibility in the back of our minds, but that isn't what happened here; it was a chaotic situation but as far as I understand of it, it WAS the first assumption that the managers were racist.  So you can't shame "white people" for assuming it isn't racist when the first assumption was that it was racist.  Also, as far as I understand, Hegelian dialectics is a sequence involving reaction/conclusions from a sequence, not a structure of logical thinking.  The Synthesis is the conclusion of the conflict between Thesis and Anti-Thesis.  That doesn't mean the Synthesis is automatically a good solution to the conflicting ideas.  In fact it can be seen as quite the opposite.

*D)* Just because we can imagine a certain situation doesn't mean it's correct, and I think it ignores your fundamental argument; that people have implicit biases.  Since this is true, the thought experiment can be just as biased as anything else.  Thinking about the situation, I can just as easily conclude that the person would have_ obviously_ treated them differently if they were white (despite no concreate proof that they would).


----------



## Troj (Apr 23, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> *Could* there be bias involved? Yes. But it's not explicit, nor is it confirmed. I won't jump to "Yup, there was bias here" when we have extremely little to go on.



Problem is, we'll likely never know _for sure_, and that'll give a lot of people enough of an excuse to sweep the whole matter under the rug out of convenience.

Requiring absolute confirmation of people's unconscious biases and/or other motives ultimately results in a stalemate that--conveniently for some, and painfully for others--preserves the status quo.

To wit: "We can't confirm this manager was being motivated by implicit biases, so, hey, we can drop the subject forever! No need to do sensitivity trainings with our staff if we can't prove our staff are ever insensitive!"

This is especially problematic on multiple when there _is_ actually an underlying pattern that unites seemingly-disparate or separate phenomena.

Also, if you watch long enough, you'll notice that most people are perfectly willing in _other_ cases to make judgments about other's unconscious or unproven motivations, so it means they're whistling dixie if they claim that one must _never_ leap to such conclusions! (Again, it's often helpful to switch around various details of a given situation as a thought experiment.)

It's a safer, smarter bet to assume that a given person's behavior will be shaped by a combination of conscious and unconscious biases, stereotypes, schemas, and beliefs than to assume that they're Spock or HAL.

It's a safer, smarter bet to assume that the average person harbors at least some subconscious racial biases and stereotypes, because to insist otherwise is to basically deny the science on the matter, which is just stupid and arrogant.

It's also just and ethical to try to correct or change harmful or incorrect beliefs or behaviors than is to potentially continue to let them operate unopposed and unchanged.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 23, 2018)

What the hell were the customers doing to make the manager fear for the stores and employees safety anyway?  Taking too long to order???  Fucking come on, dude.  At least fudge the security tape a little if you’re going to fabricate some apologist stupidity.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree with everything stated here.
> *
> Exhibit A)* You don't give any evidence that racism is a factor, you just restate that it is.  Just because there are complicated variables doesn't mean we get to attach whatever variable we want to it.  And stating "Implicit bias exists" isn't a variable because just because it exists doesn't mean it's a variable.  Especially since we can't actually take the same person and compare them in a similar or the same scenario with race, gender, sexual orientation reversed or whatever.  One incident could make me out to be a racist, but that's simply because we don't have comparable incidents with the same person.
> 
> ...



Why can't we jus agree that the manager was obviously a racist shit and move on? Seriously. It should be that simple.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> Problem is, we'll likely never know _for sure_, and that'll give a lot of people enough of an excuse to sweep the whole matter under the rug out of convenience.
> 
> Requiring absolute confirmation of people's unconscious biases and/or other motives ultimately results in a stalemate that--conveniently for some, and painfully for others--preserves the status quo.
> 
> People are perfectly willing in _other_ cases to make judgments about people's motivations, which points out a widespread glaring hypocrisy and/or major collective blind-spot here. Again, it's often helpful to switch around people's demographics as a thought experiment.



Why are you ONLY applying the "excuses" to people who want to "sweep it under the rug" as though people who claim racism aren't under the same implications of bias.

There are very... VERY few people who are at all QUALIFIED to identify implicit biases, especially very specific cases of implicit biases.  VERY few.  That person would have to be as free from bias as possible for it to even be a fair and objective tool to use.

Instead, we just give the unqualified more tools to make uninformed accusations.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Why can't we jus agree that the manager was obviously a racist shit and move on? Seriously. It should be that simple.



Because the whole argument is that the manager was implicitly racist, which I express my doubt about the validity of someone using implicit racism as a justification as they would have to be EXTREMELY QUALIFIED to even speak on the subject of unconscious bias.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Why are you ONLY applying the "excuses" to people who want to "sweep it under the rug" as though people who claim racism aren't under the same implications of bias.
> 
> There are very... VERY few people who are at all QUALIFIED to identify implicit biases, especially very specific cases of implicit biases.  VERY few.  That person would have to be as free from bias as possible for it to even be a fair and objective tool to use.
> 
> Instead, we just give the unqualified more tools to make uninformed accusations.


Pretty sure everyone unbiased or not agrees that calling the cops on a black customer who just happened to have the bad luck of STANDING INSIDE OF A BUILDING FOR TOO LONG is a piece of shit racist thing to do.  Let’s move on.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> Pretty sure everyone unbiased or not agrees that calling the cops on a black customer who just happened to have the bad luck of STANDING INSIDE OF A BUILDING FOR TOO LONG is a piece of shit racist thing to do.  Let’s move on.



Correct me if I am wrong, but the cops were called first; they were never told to exist the building?


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Because the whole argument is that the manager was implicitly racist, which I express my doubt about the validity of someone using implicit racism as a justification as they would have to be EXTREMELY QUALIFIED to even speak on the subject of unconscious bias.



Dude. People go into restaurants and wait 15-30 minutes for people to show up and order ALL THE TIME. It doesn't take an expert to figure this one out - this is a logical fallacy.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Dude. People go into restaurants and wait 15-30 minutes for people to show up and order ALL THE TIME. It doesn't take an expert to figure this one out - this is a logical fallacy.



You don't get to point out something as a logical fallacy without stating which fallacy it is, first of all.

Second of all, you're missing context between a restaurant which is a relaxed, slow moving environment and Starbucks.  Not saying it proves anything but I'm saying the environment is different so it's not a precise comparison.

Third, I was talking about implicit bias being an unreliable thing to go off of.  Your statement was unrelated given what you're replying to.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but the cops were called first; they were never told to exist the building?


Why would they be told to exit the building, which is what I’m pretty sure you meant to say?  Do you realize that people in this line of work get chewed out and written up for asking a customer to leave unless they’re being obviously belligerent?  I am at this exact level of management.  I’ve fucking been there, dude.  I know how this shit works.  This guy was a racist twat who can’t handle customers causing the slightest inconvenience, which I will admit is an inconvenience, but not anything to get the law involved over.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You don't get to point out something as a logical fallacy without stating which fallacy it is, first of all.
> 
> Second of all, you're missing context between a restaurant which is a relaxed, slow moving environment and Starbucks.  Not saying it proves anything but I'm saying the environment is different so it's not a precise comparison.
> 
> Third, I was talking about implicit bias being an unreliable thing to go off of.  Your statement was unrelated given what you're replying to.


My store is the food equivalent of a Starbucks atmosphere.  You have no idea how similar this is to my exact position.  And I’m telling you everything from this perspective, and that manager is full of shit


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 23, 2018)

Troj said:


> Problem is, we'll likely never know _for sure_, and that'll give a lot of people enough of an excuse to sweep the whole matter under the rug out of convenience.
> 
> Requiring absolute confirmation of people's unconscious biases and/or other motives ultimately results in a stalemate that--conveniently for some, and painfully for others--preserves the status quo.
> 
> People are perfectly willing in _other_ cases to make judgments about people's motivations, which points out a widespread glaring hypocrisy and/or major collective blind-spot here. Again, it's often helpful to switch around people's demographics as a thought experiment.


Oh, definitely. I won't disagree with you there. Some want to sweep it under the rug. Some want to make an anthill look like a mountain. Can't just meet on the middle anymore and just try and hammer out as many actual facts and details as possible. 

Things like prior behaviour. Of both parties.
Potential political leanings and views.
 Who they may associate with. 

The potential factors are too many to list up, so there's a short list as I can make it, and the ones IMO that are the most important. 

If the manager have shown intolerance if not negative behaviour towards black people in the past, it can easily imply bias. 

Even then, you don't have definitive proof of there being bias present, but it can in some cases, be heavily implied. 

So on that note I agree.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> Why would they be told to exit the building, which is what I’m pretty sure you meant to say?  Do you realize that people in this line of work get chewed out and written up for asking a customer to leave unless they’re being obviously belligerent?  I am at this exact level of management.  I’ve fucking been there, dude.  I know how this shit works.  This guy was a racist twat who can’t handle customers causing the slightest inconvenience, which I will admit is an inconvenience, but not anything to get the law involved over.



Fair enough then, I'm not entirely familiar with how it works.  I didn't know it was taboo to tell a customer to stop loitering.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

Furthermore,


ResolutionBlaze said:


> Fair enough then, I'm not entirely familiar with how it works.  I didn't know it was taboo to tell a customer to stop loitering.


This is why you should know the facts of the matter before you argue.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Fair enough then, I'm not entirely familiar with how it works.  I didn't know it was taboo to tell a customer to stop loitering.


You can but you have to be smart and polite about it.  Again, “are you sure I can’t help you guys with anything?” In a tone that’s _slightly _laced with irritation is bound to get someone moving.  If not, tough fucking luck, wait til close to tell them to leave.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

WithMyBearHands said:


> My store is the food equivalent of a Starbucks atmosphere.  You have no idea how similar this is to my exact position.  And I’m telling you everything from this perspective, and that manager is full of shit



You're far more qualified to speak about it than me then.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Furthermore,
> 
> This is why you should know the facts of the matter before you argue.



You didn't make the same argument so I must ask why you weren't versed enough on management to make such an argument.

You obviously aren't doing your research.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You didn't make the same argument so I must ask why you weren't versed enough on management to make such an argument.
> 
> You obviously aren't doing your research.


Because I am not a precognitive and you didn't make the relevant argument beforehand?


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 23, 2018)

The only grounds you ever have to call the cops in a situation like this is if they’re like breaking furniture or causing a disturbance to others, especially if they’re intoxicated.  My workplace is essentially designed to keep customers moving at a steady clip.  I know this game, I know how it’s played, and I know how not to break the rules and still have happy customers and moving them in and out at the same time. This manager apparently knew _none of that _and let his frustration get the better of him.  And I’ve been there too.  Not a place you wanna be if you can help it.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> Because I am not a precognitive and you didn't make the relevant argument beforehand?



Now you know how ridiculous you sound.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You don't get to point out something as a logical fallacy without stating which fallacy it is, first of all.
> 
> Second of all, you're missing context between a restaurant which is a relaxed, slow moving environment and Starbucks.  Not saying it proves anything but I'm saying the environment is different so it's not a precise comparison.
> 
> Third, I was talking about implicit bias being an unreliable thing to go off of.  Your statement was unrelated given what you're replying to.



Yeah, actually I get to point out whatever the hell I want to. If you're curious it was a cross between goalpost shift and appeal to authority - in other words, "begging for appeal to authority." 

I've been in Starbucks and regular restaurants quite a bit. There's absolutely nothing stopping regular people from siting down at a table and waiting quite a while to wait for someone or purchase something. 

And you sure as FUCK don't call the cops on them.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Yeah, actually I get to point out whatever the hell I want to. If you're curious it was a cross between goalpost shift and appeal to authority - in other words, "begging for appeal to authority."



If you want a shred of validity then yes, you need to point out what you're accusing people of.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Now you know how ridiculous you sound.


I already made the argument that the manager, the patron present at the time, the elderly lady who was catching her breath, Starbucks, and the police department have all concluded bias was a factor here. Whereas you and Yak are arguing it wasn't. Who do you think has more credence?


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You're far more qualified to speak about it than me then.


And I don’t blame you for not having experience with how these situations work.  It’s a very specific situation within a specific niche of customer service expectations.  Even if it wasn’t a racist bias, as a representative of the company, you are expected to project their desired service and patience.  And you should have the judgement capacity to catch yourself before you make a horrible decision like that.  Otherwise you weren’t qualified to manage in the first place.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> If you want a shred of validity then yes, you need to point out what you're accusing people of.



I don't "want" anything. It's irrelevant. What is relevant is the invalid arguments you're putting forth to try and support what is essentially defense of racist actions, when we cut right to the chase.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I already made the argument that the manager, the patron present at the time, the elderly lady who was catching her breath, Starbucks, and the police department have all concluded bias was a factor here. Whereas you and Yak are arguing it wasn't. Who do you think has more credence?



None of which were convincing arguments.  I already pointed out that social pressure can lead to those very same results.

However, an expert must be believed in his field of expertise.  In this case, @WithMyBearHands is the expert and their input has more credit.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I don't "want" anything. It's irrelevant. What is relevant is the invalid arguments you're putting forth to try and support what is essentially defense of racist actions, when we cut right to the chase.



It IS relevant because I am not inclined to believe you in your criticism is you can't even CITE THE FUCKING CRITICISM!

FURTHERMORE, there was no convincing evidence to me, as it can be countered by public pressure to admit to wrongdoing, or vague accusations of implicit bias that people are not qualified to speak about.  So I am not defending racist ideas, I'm defending against unconvincing arguments.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> None of which were convincing arguments.  I already pointed out that social pressure can lead to those very same results.
> 
> However, an expert must be believed in his field of expertise.  In this case, @WithMyBearHands is the expert and their input has more credit.


If we do not initially believe legal rulings and official statements, with appeals to the justice system as a recourse for disagreement, than our society falls apart. If parties involved feel aggrieved, it is their responsibility to avail themselves of the justice system. Social pressure does not factor into it.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 23, 2018)

And I will admit, from my perspective it does seem like more of a case of a bad decision being made at a very socially sensitive time and place.  I will admit that customers who don’t order anything are some of the most infuriating people on the goddamn planet, but it isn’t illegal.  And it did indeed project racist undertones that the company refuses to be associated with, and with excellent reason.  One time a guy pissed in the hallway at work, just whipped his dick out and started fuckin marking the wall.  In response I barricaded bathroom access for the rest of the evening (all of less than an hour during bar rush).  I was only in the wrong because we legally, as a restaurant, must provide restroom access to the public.  I ate shit for that and rightfully so as it was against the law.

So is wasting police officers time for someone just chilling inside.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It IS relevant because I am not inclined to believe you in your criticism is you can't even CITE THE FUCKING CRITICISM!
> 
> FURTHERMORE, there was no convincing evidence to me, as it can be countered by public pressure to admit to wrongdoing, or vague accusations of implicit bias that people are not qualified to speak about.  So I am not defending racist ideas, I'm defending against unconvincing arguments.



Actually I did cite the logical fallacy. If you don't know which ones I'm talking about, I can direct you to free logic course on EdX. The courses are about 4 weeks each, self paced. 

Implicit bias can be hard to spot. I'll agree with that. I'm not really inclined to even call this implicit bias. 

I eat out as often in one year as you probably have in your entire lifetime. Thereve been times where I haven't even ordered anything, if I'm with a group or with friends and they're eating something. Sometimes it takes me half an hour to an hour before I decide to order something. Usually I order promptly of course. I've never felt in the slightest bit pressured for any of this! Yet these two black people

*GOT ARRESTED FOR THIS VERY SAME ACTIVITY*


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Actually I did cite the logical fallacy. If you don't know which ones I'm talking about, I can direct you to free logic course on EdX. The courses are about 4 weeks each, self paced.
> 
> Implicit bias can be hard to spot. I'll agree with that. I'm not really inclined to even call this implicit bias.
> 
> ...


If you’re a seasoned service employee, you know exactly “the look” no matter how subtle or quickly it flashes across someone’s face lol.  I give those looks all the time but it’s never been grounds to call the cops.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Actually I did cite the logical fallacy. If you don't know which ones I'm talking about, I can direct you to free logic course on EdX. The courses are about 4 weeks each, self paced.



Glad you don't apply that same logic when you proof read my chapter

"There's errors in your story.... What you wanna explaination?  Take a fucking grammar and story structure course you jackass."

Apparently clarification isn't needed when angry at the person.


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Glad you don't apply that same logic when you proof read my chapter
> 
> "There's errors in your story.... What you wanna explaination?  Take a fucking grammar and story structure course you jackass."
> 
> Apparently clarification isn't needed when angry at the person.


This was a heated argument. We all have been grammatically lax, including you. Criticize the man's arguments, not his grammar.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Glad you don't apply that same logic when you proof read my chapter
> 
> "There's errors in your story.... What you wanna explaination?  Take a fucking grammar and story structure course you jackass."
> 
> Apparently clarification isn't needed when angry at the person.



Dude, chill. It's not the end of the world here.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 23, 2018)

But back to the topic of racism in general, in the spirit of the OP, I think this is pretty relevant.  I’ve always liked Malcolm X and his views.  Sometimes people don’t know what they’re fighting for or against and especially for topics like racism, it’s important to keep these kinds of points in mind.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (Apr 23, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> This was a heated argument. We all have been grammatically lax, including you. Criticize the man's arguments, not his grammar.



I... wasn't even criticizing his grammar.


----------



## Kyr (Apr 23, 2018)

I find it highly amusing that a discussion about bias, implicit or otherwise, has achieved little more than revealing the biases of its participants.

That is all, carry on.


----------



## Troj (Apr 23, 2018)

Basically, I reckon if you need to figure out whether the object coming at you is a rock or a baseball before you're willing to dodge it, you're going to end up with a black eye.

Historically, certain groups have sustained numerous, repeated, undeserved black eyes at the hands of individuals and institutions, and that's wrong.

So, whenever we have the opportunity to challenge myths or misconceptions; change incorrect, outdated, or harmful beliefs; revise unfair policies or practices; make amends for past mistakes; or remove unnecessary and unhelpful barriers to achieving fair and deserved outcomes, we should make a good-faith effort to do so.

SJWs _and _Status Quo Warriors have given people the false and loopy impression that this all has to take the form of a grand witch hunt where people found guilty of racism will be burned alive at the stake. This has only made people even _more_ defensive and even _less_ willing to admit to having less-than-savory attitudes, stereotypes, or implicit beliefs about other groups, or having said, done, or tolerated wrong or regrettable stuff in the past.

Having these biases or stereotypes doesn't make you bad---it makes you human! Rather, what makes a person "bad" in my estimation is when they actively refuse to confront their "dark" side, and would rather continue to be complicit in injustice and unfairness than have to change anything about themselves or the world they live in.

Another good thought experiment: If the most basic, no-frills description of an event makes you go, "Whoa! Uncool!" then that's a sign that _something_ is rotten in Denmark, at least.  Most people would never dream that quietly loitering at a coffee shop or trying to use the bathroom without buying anything might result in a 911 call, followed by the arrival of multiple cops who would then handcuff them and take them to jail, where they'd spend _several hours_ before being released, even _after_ witnesses (including the business partner they were waiting for) had tried to vouch for them.


----------



## Kyr (Apr 24, 2018)

So, i decided to look into the Starbucks thing a little following the discussion here.

The men that were arrested were, by the accounts i've seen, asked to leave the store and point blank refused before the police were called. Prior to them being asked to leave they asked to use the bathroom but were refused on the grounds that it was for paying customers only.

To add to that, here are some audio recordings from the Philadelphia police over the course of the incident, the recording of the arrest itself, and because it's apparently just as important to judge someone by the colour of their skin as well as the content of their character, a video by a black ex cop regarding the incident that i stumbled across.
















As it happens the last video ends up touching on the same topic Bear did when they posted the excerpt of the interview with Malcolm X.

I urge everyone involved in this discussion to watch these videos, if only because i'd like to see the resulting opinions.

EDIT: And here's a video from Philadelphia's police commissioner explaining the details of the incident.






EDIT: Didn't realize Troj edited their post and spoke about some of the things i've brought up in this post.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Apr 24, 2018)

so um maybe this will help the topic, some brutally honest shits

so I'm doing things with some wolf furry guy, and I'm pretty sure it's just blurted out, that he's black irl

and he wants it to be a non-issue but we're both feeling kind of pervy and I kind of want to play it up a little. I do think it's kind of sexy a black person would want to be a wolf? Sort of thing. Yeah it's kind of weird, it's still furry but it's a little playing up the race difference between us, that I'm ok with it but it could turn into something gros on the flip of a dime. Ultimately it ends up furry vibes again haha, but aaaaaa it could be read a certain way, like I'm his fox bro and part of his pack. Can it ever truly be only on furry terms in the first place? Sort of mindfuck. If it's not bestiality, isn't furry kind of a fascination at the prospect of 'new types of people'


also there's a youtube video somewhere where someone reveals the SECTRECT that the Khajit (sp?) from Skyrim/etc. were always written/meant to be Romani/Gypsies, so deal wit it


going further with it, do you guys think pron affects rl attitudes about this stuff. Like people joke about cuck in stupid memes but it seems to be a racial thing quite a bit. Is it selling that black dudes /have/ to be unrealistically masculine or something? It's definitely the most icky awkward porn genre to me, I swear. It's playing into TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD sort of stuff pretty much? That teh black man has teh sexual appetite for the white woman etc. etc. Even if it doesn't affect real life was there overlap, were the guys who promoted that stereotype secretly fapping about it lol

but yeah back to the naughty chat rp thing, when he said 'bro' it was meant more like, 'bros' lol. Like bros as the opposite of a cuck dynamic almost. I really can't watch rl porn because I know it has the TARGET AUDIENCE and it's like the will of the people who most fap to stuff haha. I don't think I even have to google that shit to know there's gonna be less interracial bro porn

re: target audience in porn, there is this site carstuckgirls.com, it is a fetish site about women whose cars get stuck in mud or whatever and try to pump the pedal to get out (I guess the pumping the pedal is the stimulating part). I always liked it because I dunno something struck me as the perfect bizarre fetish haha. But um it was like PROVEN by someone I think, that 99% of their audience is rando old german men? haha What HAPPENED in Germany that this became a reasonably sized fetish culture to support a whole website


maybe it's stupid doing the porn angle, but it's kinda a way to reveal 'ugly attitudes revealed in moments of passion' maybe without violence having to occur


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 24, 2018)

Frisky1753 said:


> so um maybe this will help the topic, some brutally honest shits
> 
> so I'm doing things with some wolf furry guy, and I'm pretty sure it's just blurted out, that he's black irl
> 
> ...


I'd say this was a shit post, but I don't think I understand enough of what is going on here to say.

Must be one of those shit posts Ginza condemned.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 24, 2018)

Frisky1753 said:


> so um maybe this will help the topic, some brutally honest shits
> 
> so I'm doing things with some wolf furry guy, and I'm pretty sure it's just blurted out, that he's black irl
> 
> ...


----------



## LogicNuke (Apr 24, 2018)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


>


Somebody would be disappointed.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 24, 2018)

Frisky1753 said:


> so um maybe this will help the topic, some brutally honest shits
> 
> so I'm doing things with some wolf furry guy, and I'm pretty sure it's just blurted out, that he's black irl
> 
> ...



*raises paw briefly* um... erm... how did bestiality get thrown into that mix?


----------



## Troj (Apr 24, 2018)

From Starbucks to Hashtags: We Need To Talk About Why White Americans Call the Police on Black People


> In each and every single one of these instances, a white person used the cops as his or her personal racism valets, and I was the one getting served. In each of these instances, I could have been arrested, beaten up or worse based on nothing more than the word of a white person whom I made uncomfortable. As sick as this all is, I still consider myself lucky.





> You can get arrested for pulling a fire alarm, making fake bomb threats and making false claims of an alien invasion—why not a false police report that results in death? We should be pushing for prosecution against these callers just as much as the cops who pull the trigger.



Well, and now society's going to be processing the Waffle House shootings, too. Two of my friends had a very interesting conversation last night about the shootings, because my white friend talked about being objective in our analysis of the shooting, and my black friend emphasized that he feels hurt when people who look like him are mistreated, disrespected, hurt, or killed, and hearing "well, let's be objective about this" adds to the pain, because it means people then distance themselves from his hurt and his experiences. Basically, to him, it comes across as an invalidation, because it communicates that what deeply hurts him about these events isn't "real" or deserves to be tabled--and each time the same thing happens, the hurt deepens.

Imagine if innocent furries were at the center of various tragic and/or unjust events, and someone said that we needed to step back and be objective, and not assume that furry-phobia was necessarily an important factor in these cases. Wouldn't at least part of you feel annoyed, angry, sad, or bothered by this? Wouldn't part of you feel like the person was using "objectivity" to avoid walking in your shoes? I realize this example potentially sounds trite or trivial, naturally, but I'm working with what I have here.


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 24, 2018)

Troj said:


> Imagine if innocent furries were at the center of various tragic and/or unjust events, and someone said that we needed to step back and be objective, and not assume that furry-phobia was necessarily an important factor in these cases. Wouldn't at least part of you feel annoyed, angry, sad, or bothered by this? Wouldn't part of you feel like the person was using "objectivity" to avoid walking in your shoes?



Not really, no. But that might be because I don't few furry as life style or something I was innately born as.

But then again even if it were, objectivity is better than empathy


----------



## Troj (Apr 24, 2018)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> But then again even if it were, objectivity is better than empathy



Is it? Why?

If _you_ experience something upsetting, depressing, annoying, or angering, are you going to be willing to stand by that?


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 24, 2018)

Troj said:


> Is it? Why?
> 
> If _you_ experience something upsetting, depressing, annoying, or angering, are you going to be willing to stand by that?


Objectivity allows you to look at the information you have and form a logical conclusion based off of hat you know and see. Empathy paves way for bias and irrationality

And yes, I would. I'll agree it'd feel kinda shitty, but I'd rather have someone see things through a purely logic light.


----------



## BahgDaddy (Apr 24, 2018)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> Objectivity allows you to look at the information you have and form a logical conclusion based off of hat you know and see. Empathy paves way for bias and irrationality
> 
> And yes, I would. I'll agree it'd feel kinda shitty, but I'd rather have someone see things through a purely logic light.



I know I'm usually the first to agree with statements like this, but... I've come to realize that rationality and logic are very hard to achieve. They also commonly come from a position of privilege. For instance, I've got a very logical view about wars in the middle east. I can analyze it and read articles and ponder about it. But I've got no emotional stakes invested in it because it has never affected me in the slightest, beyond maybe some oil prices.


----------



## Troj (Apr 24, 2018)

Though, in assuming objectivity and empathy are necessarily in opposition, you're committing a logical fallacy of a sort.

_Pure_ objectivity is a pipe dream, of course, due to the obvious limitations of our meat vessels.

That aside, it's absolutely possible to be able to gather and weigh information while _also_ being able to walk in another person's shoes and recognize when things make them mad or sad.  You can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Also, assuming that objectivity is "better" across the board ignores all of the daily situations, questions, and dilemmas that can't be navigated or resolved through reason alone. Should I wear my blue shoes, or my purple ones? Should I go to a movie, or go to the park? How should I react when my dog dies? How should I react when a friend is upset? How should I react to the creepy person on the subway?

Interestingly, people with damaged limbic systems are practically unable to cope with daily life, because after gathering and weighing all of the data and facts, they still can't make decisions, because they can't use emotions to break the tie.

Finally, glaringly, even people who value objectivity will tend to have a self-serving bias or blind spot around this, given that they'll want their own subjective feelings and opinions to be validated by others. It's at least important to recognize this tendency in ourselves.


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Apr 24, 2018)

another radical BRUTAL sort of idea

is there anyone who experiences like, self or intra-racist feelings? A theoretical white person who is repulsed by white people/white faces etc. I'm not talking about internet irony "I hate white people", I'm talking about full-on PERCEPTUAL PHENOMENON level thing/condition. Would it be healthier if a good amount of people existed like this?

Edit: can drugs do this, has anyone had an ultra-specific bad trip where they're terrified of their own race. Like some people on drugs blame white /institutions/ for everything but I'm not sure if actual self-racism ever happens

Edit: can this be a motivation for furry in the right person


----------



## Sergei Sóhomo (Apr 24, 2018)

Troj said:


> Though, in assuming objectivity and empathy are necessarily in opposition, you're committing a logical fallacy of a sort.
> 
> _Pure_ objectivity is a pipe dream, of course, due to the obvious limitations of our meat vessels.
> 
> ...


Steps can still be taken to get closer to an objective light by discarding empathetic input when coming to a conclusion.

Objectively, why would you need to have an understanding of why it'd effect their mood like that? What value would it add?

Emotions in personal decisions that have next to no impact on things, sure I'll give you that, but my point is on empathy. What value is there to weigh in the feelings of others when you're trying to come to a conclusion of things? If the killer of someone's husband is found, what would there be to gain by weighing in how the widow feels?

Personal bias is never something we can get rid of, but we can at least do our part in toning it down as much we can by looking at what's tangible, playing off of that to the best of one's ability without the possible irrationality that'd come from an empathetic view.



BahgDaddy said:


> I know I'm usually the first to agree with statements like this, but... I've come to realize that rationality and logic are very hard to achieve. They also commonly come from a position of privilege. For instance, I've got a very logical view about wars in the middle east. I can analyze it and read articles and ponder about it. But I've got no emotional stakes invested in it because it has never affected me in the slightest, beyond maybe some oil prices.


Why would this be a bad thing?


----------



## Troj (Apr 24, 2018)

Sergei Sóhomo said:


> Emotions in personal decisions that have next to no impact on things, sure I'll give you that, but my point is on empathy. What value is there to weigh in the feelings of others when you're trying to come to a conclusion of things? If the killer of someone's husband is found, what would there be to gain by weighing in how the widow feels?



Because we're social-emotional beings first and foremost. Our actions and reactions are filtered through and driven mainly by emotion and instinct. If you leave emotions out of the equation, you can't make sense of half (or more) of the world. 

Weighing in on the widow's feelings can potentially contribute to a larger social atmosphere or social consensus that can influence how people think and behave in other situations, to the point where it can even potentially influence social norms and public policy.


----------



## WithMyBearHands (Apr 24, 2018)

If the reports Kyr posted are true, then the only infraction I can pick out on the managers part is refusal to the restroom.  If you serve food, at least here, you must provide access to a public restroom.  It’s a legal obligation


----------



## Friskyaa123 (Apr 24, 2018)

just for the record my local starbucks seems pretty OK. But also the staff is mostly people of color and like one woman I found out is LAOTIAN (like king of the hill holy crap). And then like there's some overlap, some people are probably gay or trans

it probably wasn't this forum but I think people are gonna jump to conclusions because starbucks, evilcorp incorporated, but I made a non-racial point in the other place, if you don't find interesting people at a starbucks it's still a cross section of the LOCAL PEOPLE. If you don't think anyone is a true kvlt artist there maybe it's just because your TOWN is boring haha


----------



## TheFurryFury (May 2, 2018)

I'd say if the people who created the "Us Vs. Them" mindset are really the people to blame the most. People follow examples that aren't always right. It's still okay to blame the people for not having their own moral compass though.


----------



## GreenZone (May 2, 2018)

TheFurryFury said:


> I'd say if the people who created the "Us Vs. Them" mindset are really the people to blame the most. People follow examples that aren't always right. It's still okay to blame the people for not having their own moral compass though.


----------



## DeeTheDragon (May 2, 2018)

GreenZone said:


>


1 week counts as a necro?  That seems a bit harsh to me.


----------



## GreenZone (May 2, 2018)

DeeTheDragon said:


> 1 week counts as a necro?  That seems a bit harsh to me.




ye


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 2, 2018)

GreenZone said:


>



At this point I think you're a troll.


----------



## Dragoneer (May 2, 2018)

I am closing this thread, and doing so with an official statement: as stated, Fur Affinity does not ban or suspend people for being against racism. Racism is bad. However, we ask people to discuss things in a polite and civil manner when they do. In addition, discussion should respect our policy against calling out other individuals. Be excellent to each other.


----------

