My thoughts: this was not an accident. This was testing the waters.
I wonder what the person who absolutely insisted to me yesterday that this wasn’t about black people in general would have to say about this…
My thoughts: this was not an accident. This was testing the waters.
I wonder what the person who absolutely insisted to me yesterday that this wasn’t about black people in general would have to say about this…
Having it clearly explained to you but still not letting it go. Clearly the example Lemmy mods should be aspiring to.
Edit: The point is that a resurrected MLK jr. could have said the same thing Trump said about Kamala and still had it refuted. Racism is besides the point and requires a whole bunch of supporting evidence regarding past statements, policies, and associations for any undecideds that haven’t already made up their mind.
So was this man racist when he said the N-word or is your whole principle of charity thing demanding (your word last time) that we give the best possible interpretation here and say it was all an accident and he never meant to be racist?
Declaring it an accident actually makes the argument ‘dude is racist’ stronger. If the N-word is used so often in your speech you utter it on camera by accident… yeah, that’s racist. I cannot see a charitable version implying the argument ‘dude is not racist for uttering the N-word, accidentally or not’, but I would entertain attempts in the interest of rational argumentation.
As the article says, his claim was that he “began to mispronounce the word ‘migrants’ and caught myself halfway through.”
Based on your whole ‘principle of charity’ idea, isn’t it your duty to believe him?
No. The duty is to argue against the best version of his argument. For example: “Uttering the N-word in a racist manner is evidence I am a racist, I didn’t say the N-word, so this is not evidence I am a racist” fairly (side note: this may not be the best version of the argument so if someone concocts a better one I would attack that instead).
In this example I would (and already did elsewhere) say “I listened to the tape and heard a hard-N so the premise ‘I didn’t say the N-word’ is false” so the rest of the argument collapses and the argument concludes “he said the N-word, so this IS evidence he is racist”.
Ah, I see, the “principle of charity” includes “I know when to be charitable and it’s when I feel like it.”
Interesting how you didn’t argue against the “best version” of “she became black.”
Again, you’re a mod. Do better. Nowhere did I even imply ‘when I feel like it’.
You argue against the best version of the opponent’s argument. My argument transcends any accusations of racism, but does not preclude them which makes it the better form. You refusing to get that is sea-lioning at this point. Figureidout or let it go.
I am not a mod in this community either. I know you keep wanting to make that somehow relevant, but it isn’t. In the communities I moderate, it’s my job to enforce the rules. It’s certainly not my job to listen to someone excuse overt racism and not say “no, it’s racism.”
And the best version of Trump’s “she became black” claim was the one you made- that it wasn’t racist. You didn’t argue against it, you made it.
Are you trying to argue that in the forums you actually moderate you suddenly smarten up and start thinking rationally? What changes in you from one link to another that performs this miraculous change?